1V(«  SllMlnsffa/^ 


^.^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^^ 


Purchased  by  the 
Mrs.  Robert  Lenox  Kennedy  Church  History  Fund 


BX  8999  .A82  L3  1882 
Lathan,  R.,  1829-1896. 
History  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  Sout 


,;vv- 


^'& 


HISTORY  V^A 


OCT  8    1936 


.^ 


OF  THE 


Associate  Reformed  Synod 


OF  THE 


SOUTH, 


TO  WHICH   IS  PREFIXED 


A  History  of  the  Associate  Presbyterian 


AND 


Reformed  Pbesbyteriah  Churches. 




BY 

REV.  ROBERT  LATHAN,  D.  D. 


HARRISBURG,  PA.  : 

PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  AUTHOK. 

1882. 


Kiitcrcd,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  l.S,S:3, 

By  ROBERT  LATHAN,  D.  D., 

In  till'  OHice  of  the  Librarian  of  Con2;ress,  at  Washinutnn.  !).  (' 


PREFACE. 


THE  ASSOCIATE  REFORMED  CHURCH  lias  had  an  or- 
ganic existence  for  one  hundred  years.  Still  its  origin  and 
liistoryare  scarcel}^  known  to  any  outside  of  its  pale,  and  but  poorly 
known  to  many  inside.  The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  No  contin- 
uous hietor}'  of  the  denomination  has  ever  been  given  to  the  world. 
Sketches  of  detached  portions  have,  on  various  occasions,  been  pub- 
lished, but  the  Church  as  a  whole  has  no  written  histor3^  The 
Synod  of  the  South  has  been  singularly  neglected,  in  that  no  one 
has  either  had  the  time,  or  the  means,  or  the  inclination  to  trace  its 
rise  and  progress.  The  following  is  an  effort  to  supply  a  long-felt 
want.  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  trace  the  history  of  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  from  its  rise  in  the  first  Secession,  in  1733, 
under  the  Erslvines,  down  to  the  present  time.  The  facts  haA'ebeen 
gleaned  from  every  source  accessible.  Neither  expense  nor  labor 
have  been  regarded.  The  principal  authorities  consulted  and  drawn 
upon  are  McKerrow's  Histor}^  of  the  Secession,  Gibb's  Display,, 
Reid's  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland,  Hethering- 
ton's  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  Struther's  History  of  Scot. 
land,  Woodrow's  Histor}-  of  the  Sufferings  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, Hetherington's  History  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  Bail- 
lie's  Letters  and  Journal,  Crookshank's  Works,  besides  a  number 
of  minor  works. 

In  that  part  which  refers  more  immediately  to  the  history  of  the 
formation  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  and  especially  to  the 
histor}'-  of  the  Synod  of  the  South,  the  principal  authorities  are  the 
original  docuiuents.  The  minutes  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania,  the  minutes  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  the 
minutes  of  the  General  S3^nod,  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  the 
South,  and  the  various  deliverances  made  by  these  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  have  been  relied  upon  for  facts.  In  addition  to  these,  re. 
course  was  had  to  old,  must}^  pamphlets  which  had  long  since  found 
a  resting  place  in  garrets  and  waste-boxes. 


PRErACE. 

An  eftbrt  was  made,  with  what  success  we  cannot  sa}',  to  render 
each  part  complete  in  itself,  and  at  the  same  time  to  preserve  the 
unit3'  of  the  parts.  This  invoh-ed  a  considerable  amount  of  repe- 
tition. 

To  a  number  of  individuals,  the  author  desires  to  return  his  sin- 
cere thanks  for  favors.  To  Drs.  John  Forsyth,  Joseph  T.  Cooper 
and  Thomas  Sproul,  he  is  under  many  obligations ;  but  especially 
he  is  under  obligations  to  Dr.  James  B.  Scouller,  of  Js'ewville,  I'a. 
From  Dr.  James  Boyce,  of  Due  West,  S.  C,  he  received  much 
valuable  aid  and  encouragement.  It  would  be  an  act  of  lasting 
ingratitude  were  he  not  to  mention  his  indebtedness  to  D,r.  R.  A. 
Koss,  his  co-Presbyter,  who,  hour  after  hour,  sat  patiently  hearing 
the  manuscript  read. 

Whether  the  work  is  a  success  or  failure,  the  author  cannot  tell. 
The  reader  must  judge.  Its  preparation  has  been  a  work  of  great 
labor,  but  of  intense  delight.  Should  it  prove  worthy  of  public 
support,  it  will  be  followed  b}'  another  volume,  containing  a  history 
of  each  of  the  congregations  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod, 
and  a  biographical  sketch  of  all  its  ministers,  both  living  and 
dead.  R.  L. 

YORKVILLE,  S.  C. 


Table  of  Contents, 


CHAPTER  I. 

Divisions  in  tlio  Cliurcli— Tlie  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian  Clnircli— History  of 
tlie  Associate  Presbytery— Its  Adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith- 
Origin  not  a  Difficulty  about  Communion  or  Psalmody— The  Relief  Church- 
Church  of  Scotland  Previous  to  1733— Recissory  Act— Presbyterian  ^Ministers 
Ejected- Presbyterians  Forbidden  to  Preach— James  II.  Abdicated  tlie  Throne— 
'•  KillingTime'"— William  of  Orange— General  Assembly  Meets— Presbyterianism 
Restored— Its  Charactcr-Cameronians— Causes  which  Led  to  the  Organization  of 
Associate  Presbytery— Christianity  Introduced  into  Scotland— Form  of  Church 
Government— Donald  I.  Baptized— Druids  Succeeded  by  the  Culdees— Paladius 
Sent  to  Scotland— Lollards  of  Kyle— Culdees  Suppressed— The  Retormation— 
First  Confession  of  Faitli— Revolutionary  Settlement— Its  Defects— The  Society 
Folk— Cameron  and  Cargill— Declaration  of  the  Cameronians— Results  of  Seces- 
sion—The Second  Cause  of  Secession— Church  of  Scotland  Calvanistic— Doctrinal 
Notions  of  those  who  Composed  it  after  the  Revolutionary  Settlement— Bishop 
Burnet's  Statement— Character  of  Presbyterian  Ministers— The  Auchterarder 
Proposition— Craig  Refuses  to  Subscribe  it— Professor  Simson's  Doctrines— Gene- 
ral Assembly  Favor  Him— He  is  not  Censured. — p.  5  to  p.  26. 

CHAPTER  II. 

-■•  Marrow"'  Con t rovers j'— The  Author  of  "The  Marrow  of  IModern  Divinity"— Intro- 
duced into  Scotland— Republished  bj'  Rev.  James  Hog— Excited  Great  Opposi- 
tion—Severely Criticised  by  Principal  Haddow— Defended  by  Thomas  Boston- 
Commission  of  tlie  General  Assembly— '-The  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity"'  Re- 
ferred to  the  Commission— Action  of  the  Commission— Summon  before  them 
Hog,  Hamilton,  Brisbane  and  Warden— Report  of  the  Commission-"  The  Marrow 
of  Modern  Divinity"'  Condemned  by  the  Assembly- The  Eftect  upon  the  People- 
Attempt  to  Again  Bring  the  Matter  before  the  Assembly—"  Marrow"  Men  called 
"  Representers  " — Summoned  Before  the  Commission— Twelve  Questions— An- 
swers—Characters  of  the  Answers p.  27  to  p.  61. 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Effect  of  the  "Marrow"  Controversy  on  the  Church— Professor  Simson  Denies 
the  Necessary  Existence  of  .Jesus  Christ— Is  Tried  by  the  Presbytery  of  Glasgow — 
His  Case  is  Brought  before  the  General  Assembly— Charges  all  Proved— The 
Church  Greatly  Corrupted— Blasphemous  Doctrines— Professor  Simson"s  Case 
Ended,  1729— Many  were  Grieved  on  Account  of  the  Leniency  Shown  Him  by  the 
Assembly— The  "Marrow"  Men  Protest— Effect  Nothing— Patronage— Its  Origin- 
Presbyterian  Mode  of  Settling  Vacant  Congregations— The  Manner  Previous  to 
the  Secession— Patronage  Law  Revived  by  Charles  II.— Abolished  in  1688— Re- 
stored in  1711— Clergy  in  Favor  of  the  .Patronage  Act— The  Assembly  Appoints 
"  Riding  Committees"'  to  Settle  Pastors— Tlae  "  Riding  Committees''  Call  out  the 
Military  to  Assist  Them— The  Overture  of  1731  Designed  to  Crush  out  the  Rights 
of  the  People— The  Overture  Rejected  by  the  Presbyteries,  but  Adopted  by  the  Gen. 
eral  Assembly— Character  of  the  General  Assembly— The  Overture  the  Proximate 
Cause  of  the  Secession— Robert  Stark  Forcibly  Placed  over  the  Congregation  of 
Kinross— Ebenezer  Erskine's  Sermon — Adam  Ferguson  Moved  the  Appointing  of 
a  Committee  to  Consider  the  Sermon— Objection  Stated  by  the  Committee— Ser- 
mon Published— The  Objectionable  Passages  Scriptural— Mr.  Erskine  Defends 


11  TABLE    or    CONTENTS. 

Himself— Tlie  Kiiigsliipof  Clirist  Offensive  to  tlie  Majority— Mr.  Erskine'.s  Defi- 
nition of  a  Call— Adlieres  to  his  Notes— Mr.  Erskine  Censured  by  the  Synod  of 
Perth  and  Sterling— Twelve  Ministers  and  two  Elders  Protest— Mr.  Erskine  i.s 
Ordered  to  be  Rebuked  in  April— He  Refuses  to  be  Rebuked  and  Presents  a  Pa- 
per—General As.sembly  met  in  May,  1733— Mr.  Erskine's  Protest  Brought  Before 
the  Assembly— The  Assembly  Order  Mr.  Erskine  to  be  Rebuked— He  Declared  he 
Could  not  .Submit — Protests  of  Wilson,  Moncrieffand  Fisher— Assembly  Refuse<l 
to  Hear  the  Protest  Read— Protest  Fell  on  the  Floor— Is  Read  by  Naesmith— Ex- 
citement in  the  Assembly— Protesters  Sent  for— Act  of  ]T3:i— Protesters  Brought 
Before  the  Assembly— Ordered  Before  theCommis.sion  in  August- The  Protesters 
Appear  Before  the  Commission— Are  not  Permitted  to  Defend  Them.selves— Divi- 
sion in  the  Commission— Protesters  Suspended— Intense  Interest  Felt  Throughout 
Scotland— Petitions  Sent  to  the  Commission— Commission  Meet  in  November. 
1733— Higher  Censure  Inflicted  by  the  Commission  upon  the  Protesters— The  Pro- 
testers Received  the  Sympathy  of  Many  in  the  Church— They  did  not  Secede,  but 
were  Violently  Thrust  Out- Meet  at  Oairney  Bridge  and  Organize  the  Associate 
Presbytery.— 1».  62  to  p.  89. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Reformed  Presbyterians  Called  by  Different  Names:  Covenanters.  Cannronians, 
Society  People  and  Strict  Presbyterians  — Covenanters  not  Distinct! ve— The 
Church  of  Scotland  a  Cosenanting  Church— Frequently  Entered  into  Covenant 
with  God— Fluctuations  in  the  Church  of  Scotland— First  Relormation— Culdees 
Suppressed— Moral  Darkness— Lollards  of  Kyle— First  Confession  of  Faith— Na- 
tional Covenant— Presbyterianism  Established  by  Act  of  Parliament— Elizabeth 
Died — James  VI.  Beeomes  King— English  Dissenters— Millenary  Petition— Hamp- 
ton Court — James  Abuses  the  Puritans— Character  of  James— Westminster  As- 
sembly—Conlcssion  of  Faith  Ratified  by  tlie  Church  of  Scotland— Charles  I.  Put 
to  Death— Charles  II.  Crowned— Cromwell  Dies  — Charles  II.  Brought  Back— 
"Killing  I'eriod"— Origin  of  Reformed  Presbyterians— Parties  in  the  Church  of 
Scotland— Charles  F'>xhumes  the  Bones  of  Cromwell,  Ireton  and  Bradshaw— Ap- 
jirehends  the  Marquis  of  Argyle— Argyle  Put  to  Death— Guthrie  Executed— Res- 
cissory Act  Passed— Drinking  Parliament— Three  Thousand  Ministers  Ejected— 
Twenty  Thousand  Presbyterians  Put  to  Death— Cameronians  would  Make  no 
Compromise— Rise  o!  the  Strict  Presbyterians,  1079— Order  to  Apprehend  Welsh. 
Cameron.  l)ouglass  ami  Kid— Murder  of  Archbishop  Sharp— Persecutions  on  Ac- 
count of  Roljert  Hamilton— Rutherglen  Declaration— Battle  of  Drumclog— Both- 
well  Bridge— Queensferry  Paper— The  Three  Presbyterian  Ministers,  Cameron, 
Cargill  and  Douglass— Cameron  Killed,  1680— Cargill  Executed,  1681— Society  Peo- 
ple Send  Young  Men  to  Holland  to  Receive  Ordination— Alexander Peden,  James 
Renwick,  Alexander  Shields,  Thomas  Boyd  and  David  Houston— Peden's  Body 
Exhumed  and  Insulted— Renwick,  the  Last  of  the  Scotch  Martyrs-^Cameronian 
Principles  — Prince  of  Orange— Linning,  Boyd  and  Shields  Join  the  National 
Church— Houston  Without  Influence— Religious  Instruction  Among  the  Society 
People— First  Meeting  of  the  Society |).  90  to  p.  105. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Reformed  Presbyterians,  Continued— The  Rev.  John  McMillan  Adopts  the  .Senti- 
ments of  the  Cameronians— Is  Deposed— Covenanters  Improperly  Called  McMil- 
lanites— McMillan's  Congregation  Cling  to  Him- General  Meeting  of  the  .Society 
People,  in  October,  1706— Call  Presented  to  Mr.  Mc:Millan— Begins  his  Pastoral 
Labors  in  1707— Union  of  England  and  Scotland— Society  People  Opposed  the 
Union— The  Rev.  John  McNeil  Joins  the  .Society  People— Protestation  and  Testi- 
mony of  the  United  Societies— Sanquhar  Declaration— Objections  to  the  Union  of 
England  and  .Scotland— Protestation  and  Appeal— Religious  and  Political  Parties 
in  .Scotland— Friends  of  the  Pretenders  and  Foes  of  the  House  of  Hanover— Re- 
newing the  Covenants— The  Rev.  John  McMillan  Defective  as  an  Organizer- John 
McNeil  Never  Ordained— Efforts  to  Organize  a  Presbytery— Adamson,  McHen- 
dry,  Taylor  and  Gilchrist  Deposed— Society  People  Attempt  to  Form  a  LTnion 
with  Them— Also,  with  the  '•  Marrow"  Men— Thomas  Nairn  Leaves  the  Associate 


TABLE    OF.  CONTENTS.  Ill 

Presbytery  and  Joins  the  Society  People— Tlie  Reformed  Presbytery  Constituted 
Ausriist  1st,  1743— Xairn  Returns  to  the  XationalChurch— Doctrines  of  the  Society 
People— Political  Opinions— Covenanters  Come  to  America— Sent  to  New  Jersey- 
Lord  Pit  loch y— Covenanters  Scatter  Over  the  Country— Their  Number  and  Places 
of  Residence  in  Scotland— Begin  to  Emigrate  to  America— Form  Societies  in 
America— First  General  Meeting  at  Middle  Octoraro,  March  41h,  1744— Covenant- 
ers Joined  by  Rev.  Alexander  Craighead— Mr.  Craighead's  Difficulties— His  Con- 
gregation Called  "  Craighead  Society"— Mr.  Craighead  Publishes  a  Pamphlet- 
Thomas  Cookson  Complains  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia— The  Synod  Condemn 
the  Pamphlet— The  Rev.  John  Cuthbertson  Comes  to  America— Mr.  Cuthbertson"s 
Labors— First  Communion— The  Rev.  Alexander  McDowell  and  Mr.  Cuthbertson 
Labor  Together— Revs.  Linn  and  Dobbin  Come  to  America— Reformed  Presbytery 
Constituted— Synod  Organized— Division  in  the  Sjnod.— 1>.  106  to  p.  IIS. 

CHAPTER  YI. 

Associate  Presbytery  Unpopular— A  few  Ministers  in  the  National  Church  Friends 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery— The  Erskine  Party  Loosed  from  their  Pastoral  Re- 
lations—The  Dominant  Party  Frightened— .\cts  of  As.sembly  Annulled— Popular 
Movement— Assembly's  Act  in  Reference  to  the  Return  of  the  Erskine  Party- 
Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling  Restore  the  Seceders— Ebenezer  Erskine  Elected 
Moderator— People  Desired  the  Secession  Party  to  Return— Established  Church— 
Tlie  Secession  Party  Could  not  Return— Mr.  Wil.son  Perplexed— Seceders  Sum- 
moned Before  the  Assembly— Appear  asa  Presbyterj-—Their  Declinature— Action 
of  the  Assembly— Seceders  Reluctantly  Leave  the  Establi.shed  Cliurch— They  had 
ro  Alternative- Mr.  John  Hunter  Licensed— Andrew  Clarkson  Licensed— Thonia.s 
Nairn  Joins  the  A.ssociate  Presbytery— John  Hunter  Ordained— He  Dies  in  1740— 
James  Thompson  Joins  the  Associate  Presbytery— James  Mair  and  Adam  Beugo 
Join  tlie  Associate  Presbytery— They  are  Ordained  Ministers  in  1740— Growth  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery— Strict  Discipline— No  Patronage— No  Ruling  Elders 
for  Four  Years— First  Elders— Presbyterian  Order— Theological  Professor  Chosen. 
— 1».  119  to  p.  131. 

CHAPTER  YII. 

Important  Facts  Connected  With  the  History  of  Associate  Presbytery— Associate 
Synod  Organized— Burgess  Oath—Controversy  Respecting  Nairn  Difficulty— 
Nairn  Joins  Cameronians— Returns  to  the  National  Church— Design  of  the  Bur- 
gess Oath— American  Government— Cameronians  and  Seceders  Quarrel— Division 
ill  the  Associate  Synod— Anti-Burghers  and  Burghers— Number  of  Anti-Burghers 
—Of  lUirghers— Reunion  and  Formation  of  the  United  Associate  Synod— Number 
of  Ministers— Union  of  Secession  Synod  of  Ireland  and  Synod  of  Ulster— Union 
of  the  United  Secession  and  Relief  Synod— Formation  of  the  United  Presbyterian 
r7(to-e7i— Strength  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church— Growth  of  the  Associate 
Church— Its  Missionary  Character— Call  for  Laborers  from  Ireland— First  Minis- 
ters Sent  to  America—Rev.  Gilbert  Tennant— Rev.  John  Moorhead— Organiza- 
tion of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America— Nativity  of  its  Ministers— Congre- 
gational Element— Old  Side  and  New  Side— Journal  of  ^Yhitfield— Belfast  Society 
— F'irsi  Petition  for  Preaching  in  America  by  Seceder.s— Alexander  Craighead— 
Organization  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia— Adopting  Act— Misunderstanding 
Concerning.— p.  132  to  p.  145. 

CHAPTER    YIII. 

Gellatly  and  Arnot  Come  to  America— Their  Instructions-Seceder  Societies— Hume 
and  Jamieson  Appointed  to  go  to  America— Andrew  Bunyan  Deprived  of  his  Li- 
cense—(iood  Effect— Condition  of  America  in  17.51— Bunyan  Restored— Apo.stolic 
Plan  '•  by  two  and  1  wo '— Gellatly  and  Arnot  Solicited  to  Join  the  Presbyterian 
Church— Stigmatized  as  Schismatics- Warning  Published— Delop's  Pamphlet-^ 
•  Controversy  About  the  Nature  of  Faith  and  the  Gospel  Oflfer- Ralph  Erskine's 
View— Finley  and  Smith  and  Gellatly  and  Arnot  Controversy— Mr.  Gellatley 
-Settles  as  Pastor— Arnot  Returns  to  Scotland- James    Proudfool    Arrives    in 


IV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

America— Settles  at  Pequa— Removes  to  Salem— Mission  Station  of  Associate 
Synod— Matthew  Henderson  Comes  to  America— Settles  at  Oxford— John  Mason, 
Robert  Annan  and  John  Smart  Come  to  America— Mason  Settles  in  New  York  ; 
Annan  at  Marsli  Creelc  — Smart  Returns  to  Scotland— William  Marshall  Comes 
to  America— Receives  Three  Calls— Occasions  a  Difficulty  in  the  Presbytery— Mr. 
Henderson  Dissents— Mr.  Marshall  Settles  at  Deep  Run.— 1>.  146  to  p.  155. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Pastoral  Charges  in  1765— All  Anti-Burghers— Thomas  Clark  First  Burgher  Minister 
who  Came  to  America— Birth  and  Education  of  Mr.  Clark— Licensed  and  Sent  to 
Ireland— Settles  at  Ballybay— Main.  Black  and  Clark  Constitute  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  Down— Presbytery  of  Moyrah  and  Lisburn— History  of  Thomas  Clark- 
Fought  Against  the  Pretender— Difficulties  in  Ireland— Thrust  into  Prison- 
Forced  to  Leave  the  Country— In  Company  with  Three  Hundred  Members  of  his 
Congregation  Comes  to  America— Reasons  for  Leaving  Ireland— Solicited  by 
Friends  to  Come  to  America— ijpened  a  Correspondence  with  the  Hon.  Robert 
Harper— Obtains  a  Grant  of  Land— Part  of  his  Congregation  Settle  in  South  Car- 
olina; the  Other  Part  in  New  York— The  Turner  Grant— Erected  a  Church  in 
1766-GT— Secession  of  the  Cliurch— Dr.  Clark  Visited  South  Carolina  in  1769— Re- 
signs the  Pastorate  of  Salem,  1782,  and  Settles  at  Cedar  Spring  in  1786— Dr.  Clark 
and  the  Anti-Burghers  Coalesce  in  1765— The  Coalescence  Disapproved  by  the 
Anti-Burgher  .Synod— Kinlock  and  Telfair  Sent  to  America— Join  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania — John  Smith  and  John  Rodgers  Sent  by  the  Anti- 
Burgher  Synod  to  Dissolve  the  Union  of  the  Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers  in 
America— Take  their  Seats  as  Presbyter.s— Burgher  Congregations  in  America.— 
1>.  156  to  p.  164. 

CHAPTER  X. 

Negotiations  Looking  to  an  LTnion  of  the  Associates  and  Reformed  Presbyterians- 
Division  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania— Revolutionary  War- 
Spirit  of  Ecclesiastical  Union- Proposition  lor  T7nion  in  1754;  Again  in  1769— Ne- 
gotiations Cease- Political  Disturbances  Drew  the  .Associates  and  Covenanters 
Nearer  Together— Tiieir  DifTeronces  Otily  Political— Covenanters  Opposed  by  all 
Denominations— Associates  and  Covenanters  Warmly  Espouse  the  Cause  of  the 
Colonies— Reasons  why  the  Associates  and  Covenanters  Should  Unite — Anti- 
Burghers  More  Numerous  than  tlie  Burghers— Burghers  More  Tolerant — Minis- 
ters Educated  in  .Scotland— Membership  from  Ireland— Scotch-Irish— Two  Classes 
of  Scotch-Irish— Membership  of  the  Presbyterian  Church— Corruptions  of  the 
Presbyterian  Cliurch  of  Ireland— Belfast  Society— Character  of  the  Irish  Seceders 
—Irish,  English  and  Scotch  Presbyterianism— Seceders  Scotcli  Presbyterians— 
Difl'erence  between  Associates  and  Covenanters— Occupied  the  Same  Territory- 
Cultivate  Each  Other's  Friendship— First  Meetingfor  Conferenc?—Botli  Cautious 
—Second  Meeting  for  Conference— The  Matter  Brought  Before  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery—Overture by  Rev.  Murray— Associate  Presbj'tery  Met  at  Middle  Octoraro 
—Spend  Two  Days  in  Conference— Principle  Subjects  Discussed  by  the  Confer- 
ence—Basis of  Union— Conference  Met  at  Pequa,  Pa — .Some  of  the  .Associates  Op- 
posed to  the  Union  on  -\ny  Terms— Conference  Meets  at  Big  Spring— Basis  of 
Union  Discussed— Charges  Made— Warm  Discussion— New  Proposition  Drawn 
Up— Basis  of  LTniou  Adopted  by  Presbytery  of  New  Y'ork,  1780;  by  Reformed 
Presbytery,  1781 ;  by  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  1782— James  Clark.son  and  Wil- 
liam Marshall  Refuse  to  go  into  the  Union— Clarkson  and  Marshall  Continue  the 
Associate  Presbytery— Associate  Reformed  Synod  Organized— Names  of  those 
Composing  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod— .Andrew  Patton— James  Martin- 
William  Martin— Object  Designed  to  be  EfTected  by  the  Union— Result  of  the 
Union  the  Formation  of  Another  Denomination- Th^  Prosperity  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  Continued  to  Exist  for  Seventy-six  Y'ear.s— The  Covenanters  Send  to 
Scotland  for  Ministers— Covenanters  Still  Exist— The  EflTect  of  the  Covenanters 
and  .Seceders  on  the  American  Government.— p.  165  top.  18-1. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


Pre.sbyteries  Rearranged— Xew  Names  Given  Them— Presbytery  of  Londonderry— 
It.s  Members— Character  of  the  Congregations  in  Connection  With  the  Presbytery 
of  Londonderry— Syuotl  Disclaim  all  Responsibility  for  its  Acts— Joins  the  Synod 
of  Albany— Organization  of  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinasand  Georgia — Organ- 
ization of  tlie  Presbyteries  Previous  to  1822— Four  Synods  Organized— First  Meet- 
ing of  the  General  Synod— Members  Present— Education  of  Candidates  for  the 
Ministry— Theological  Seminary  Founded— John  M.  Mason  .Sent  to  Europe  in 
Behalf  of  the  Theological  Seminary— His  .Success— Returns  Home  Accompanied 
by  Five  Ministers  and  One  Probationer— John  M.  Mason  Chosen  Professor  of 
Theology— Other  Theological  .Seminaries  in  America— Growth  of  the  General 
Synod— Disturbing  Elements— Associate  Reformed  Church  in  a  Formative  .State 
—Confession  of  Faith  Adopted  in  1799— .Sections  of  the  .Scotch  Confession  Not 
Adopted— Finally  Amended— Deliverence  of  the  .Synoil  Concerning  Testimonies 
—The  Little  Constitution— Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  Defective— Not 
Adopted  as  a  Whole  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Churdi— First  and  .second  Books 
of  Discipline— Changes  Made  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  by  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church— The  Overture  Published- Its  Object— Matthew  Hen- 
derson Withdraws— Diversity  of  Opinions  Among  the  Fathers  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church— John  Smith's  Difficulty— Judicial  Testimonies  Demanded— 
Synod  Refused  to  Prepare  a  Testimony— Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church.— 1>.  1S5  lo]|>.  203. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Disturbances  Growing  Out  of  the  Unsettled  .State  of  the  Church— The  First  Insubor- 
dinate Act— I^ondouderry  Presbytery- David  Annan  Admits  .Samuel  Taggart 
and  then  Ordains  William  Morrison— The  .Synod  Pronounced  the  Act  Irregular, 
but  the  Ordination  Valid— "  The  Presbytery  of  the  Eastward"  Coalesces  With 
the  Londonderry  Presbytery — The  3Iembers  of  this  New  Organization  Rarely  At- 
tend Syno(.l— .Soon  Began  to  .Show  .Signs  of  La.xity— Congregational  in  Their  No- 
tions—A Committee  Appointed  to  Visit  the  Presbytery— Wrote  a  Letter— Nature 
of  the  Presbytery's  Irregularities— Mr.  Morrison's  Reply  tothe  Lelterof  theCom- 
mittee— Its  Fallacies— Declared  Insubordinate  by  the  Synod— Associate  Reformed 
Presbyterianism  Ceased  to  Exist  in  New  England — Revived  in  lS4Gby  Dr.  Blaikie 
—The  Reformed  Dissenting  Presbytery— Its  Origin  and  History— United  With 
the  Associate  Church  in  1851— Difficulty  in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York— Fast 
Days  and  Thanksgiving  Days— Dr.  John  M.  Mason's  Course— The  Difficulty  Ar- 
ranged, but  Not  .Satisfactorily  to  All— Fkequent  Commuxiox— Custom  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland— Dr.  John  M.  Mason's  Letters— Dr.  Mason's  Ability—Social 
Position— Made  a  Mistake— :Men  Obey  Custom  Rather  Than  Law— Dr.  Mason  Ex- 
cited Suspicion— John  .Smith  .Soured— Mason  and  Proudfoot— Dr.  JSIason  an  In- 
novator and  Censurable.— p.  20-4  to  p.  212 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

Associate  Reformed  Church  Began  to  Grow  and  Decline  at  the  Same  Time— Minis- 
ters Lose  Confidence  in  Each  Other— Causes  Which  Led  to  the  Final  Dissolution 
of  the  General  Synod— The  Psalmody  Question— Its  History  in  Connection  with 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  tlie  United  States— Watts'  Immitations  First  Al- 
lowed ;  then  Watts'  Hymns— Finally,  Both  Watts  and  Rouse  Practically  Laid 
Aside— History  of  Rouse's  Version  of  the  Psalms— The  .Scotch  Version— The 
Metre  of  Rouse's  Version— Rouse's  Version  Amended  and  Adopted  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland— History  of  Uninspired  Hymn.s— Para- 
phrases Allowed  by  the  Church  of  Scotland— Their  Character— Practice  of  the 
Covenanters— Practice  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  Prior  to  1753- The  Result  of 
Introducing  Watts's  Version— The  History  of  Watts'  Version— His  Design  as 
Stated  by  Himself— His  Preface  to  his  Imitations— Remarkable  Production— His 
Hymns— Offensive  to  Many— Those  Who  Had  Been  Persecuted  by  Kings  of  Eng- 
land Could  Not  .Sing  Them— Rouse's  Version— What  is  Claimed  for  it— Its  Poelic 
Excellence— The  Doctrine  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  Concerning  Psal- 


VI  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

mody— Not  a  Version,  but  the  Psalms— Psalmody  Practically  Divides  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  and  all  Hyniii-singing  Churches— A  Tendency  in  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  to  Follow  the  Multitude- Marshall's  Sermon  on  Psal- 
mody—The Associate  Reformed  Church  Took  Higher  Ground  on  Psalmody  than 
that  Occupied  hj'  the  Church  of  Scotland— Section  in  Confession  of  Faith  on 
"  Singing  of  Psalms  "—The  Section  Quoted- Trouble  About  the  Change  Proposed 
in  Paragraph  2  of  Section  III.— p.  213  to  i>.  224. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Communion  Question— Tlie  Londonderry  Presbytery— Dr.  Mason's  Difficulty 
Complicated- Dr.  Mason's  Reasons  for  Resigning  his  Charge— His  Labor.s— Pur- 
pose Thwarted  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Congregation— With  a  Colony  Began  to  Es- 
tablish a  Third  Congregation  In  Xew  York— Had  Difficulty  to  Get  a  Place  of 
Worsliip— Was  Granted  Conditionally  Dr.  Romeyn's  Church— The  Offer  Accepted 
—Dr.  Mason's  Preaching- The  Effect  Upon  the  Two  Congregations— They  Com- 
mune Together— The  Case  Came  Before  the  General  Synod— Dr.  Mason's  State- 
ments Respecting  His  Course— The  Doctrine  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
Respecting  the  Communion  of  Saints— The  XXVIth  Chapter  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith— Tlie  Little  Constitui  ion— Doctrine  of  the  Early  Seceders  and 
Covenanters  Respecting  the  Communion  of  Saints— Wilson  Quoted— .Shields 
Quoted— Gellatly  Quoted— The  Narrative  Quoted— The  State  of  Things  when  the 
Associate  Reformed  .Synod  was  Organized— No  Brotherly  Love— This  Had  Been 
the  Case  .Since  KJTO— The  Burghers  and  Ant i-Burghers- Practically.  There  Was 
No  Such  Thing  as  Occasional  Communion  Prior  to  I810— Its  Lawfulness  Admit- 
ted by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church— The  Occasional  Communion  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Fathers  Not  the  Modern,  Catliolic  Communion— Dr.  Mason's  Pe- 
culiar Circumstances— His  Act  was  Contrary  to  Custom,  but  not  to  Law— The 
Case  of  Messrs.  Mattliews  and  Clark— All  Tried  Together— This  l^nfortunate- 
Resolution  Passed— tieneral  Dissatisfaclion—Dr.  Mason  Preaches  for  Dr.  Romeyn 
— I'ses  Watts'  Psalms— Clear  Violation  of  Law— Mr.  Clark  Censurable— The  Vote 
in  the  Case- No  One  Satisfied- The  Parties  Disposed  to  be  E.xtremists  — 1>.  225 
to  p.  237. 

CHAPTER    XV. 

Result  of  the  .\ction  of  the  Synod  in  Mason,  Matthews  and  Clarke  Case— Parties 
Lose  Confidence  in  Each  Other -The  General  Synod  "  Intermit  the  Functions  of 
the  Snbordina'e  Synods  "—General  Synod  Always  Meets  at  Philadelphia— The 
Synods  of  the  South  and  West  Practically  Excluded— Remonstrances  Against 
the  Action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1811  by  The.se— Synod  of  Scioto  Withdrew  in 
1R20— Synod  of  the  Carolinas  Became  Independent  in  182-2— Synod  of  New  York 
Never  Meets— A  Majority  of  the  Peonle  Opposed  to  the  Course  Pursued  by  Gen- 
eral Synod— The  Result.  Had  the  Matter  Been  Submitted  to  a  Popular  Vote- 
Correspondence  Between  the  ."^ynod  of  Scioto  and  the  .Synod  of  the  South— The 
Condition  of  tlie  Associate  Reformed  Church- Synod  of  tlie  South  Appoint  a  Fast 
Day— The  Bishop-Rankin  Difficulty— Settled  to  the  Satisfaction  of  Neither  Party 
—Character  of  Messrs.  Bishop  and  Rankin -The  Psalmody  and  Communion  Ques- 
tion the  Real  Cau.se  of  the  DiflSculty  Between  Me.ssrs.  Bishop  and  Rankin— Dr. 
Ma.son's  Plea— :Mr.  Rankin's  Reply— The  Downward  Tendency  of  the  General 
Synod— The  Psalmody  Question  Revived— Ebenezer  Clarke's  Resolutions— A 
New  Version  of  the  Psalms  Called  For  by  a  Few-The  Reformed  Dutch  Version 
Allowed— The  Union  Spirit— Negotiations  with  the  Reformed  Dutch— This  Broken 
Up  by  Similar  Negotiations  with  the  General  A.s.sembly— A  Union  Formed  with 
the  General  As.sembly— Basis  and  Condition  of  this  Union— The  Vote  on  Union- 
No  Union  Actually  Formed— Names  of  the  Ministers  Going  into  the  L'nion— The 
Theological  Library  Removed  to  Princeton— Law  Suit  for  its  Recovery— Library 
Restored  in  1837.— p.  238  to  p.  252. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  Vll 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
The  United  Presbyterian  Chureli— Its  Organization— Tlie  Time  and  Place  of  tlie  Or- 
ganization—Strength of  the  United  Presbyterian  ClyLU-ch- Present  .Strength- 
Number  of  Presbyteries,  Synods,  Families,  Communicants,  Ministers  and  the 
Territory  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church— Foreign  Missions— Basis  of  Union 
—Doctrines  of  tlie  United  Presbyterian  Churcli— Number  of  Psalm-singing 
Churches  in  America— All  Divided— p.  253  to  p.  255. 

CHAPTER  XYII. 

Synod  of  the  Carolinas-Present  Territory— Former  Limits— The  Grant  of  Charles  II. 
in  1663— Territory  Visitetl  by  Cabot,  1497— Claimed  by  the  English.  Spaniards  and 
French— Spanish  Attempt  a  Settlement  in  1525— Admiral  Coligny's  Grant  in  1562 
— Rebault  Built  Fort  Carolina— Fort  Carolina  Destroyed  by  the  Spaniards— Caro- 
lina Became  the  Property  of  the  King  in  1719— Divided  into  North  and  South 
Carolina  in  1729— Georgia  Settled  in  1733— North  Carolina,  in  1653— South  Carolina, 
in  1670— State  of  Things  in  England  at  That  Time— Liberty  of  Conscience  Granted 
loy  the  Charter-s— Design  Was  to  Establish  Prelacy— Was  Legally  Established- 
Covenanters  Banished  from  Scotland  to  America— Some  Came  to  Carolina— 
Their  Principal  Settlements— William  Martin's  Field  of  Labor— Petitions  Sent 
from  Carolina  to  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  in  1760— Proud  foot. 
Mason,  Martin,  Rodgers.  Patten  and  Clark  Sent  to  the  Societies  in  Carolina- 
Martin  Received  a  Call  from  Fourth  Creek,  inl774— The  Associate  Ministers  from 
1782  to  1799— The  Rev.  Thomas  Clark  Comes  South  in  1782— Returned  North  in  1783 
—The  Rev.  John  Jamieson  Comes  Soutli— Places  of  Preaching— Dr.  CMark  Re- 
turned to  the  South,  and  in  1786  Became  Pastor  of  Cedar  Spring  and  Long  Cane- 
John  Boyse  Began  to  Preach  at  Coddle  Creek,  Gilead,  Prosperity  and  Hopewell, 
in  1788— The  Covenanters  Visited  by  James  Reid  in  1790— McGarrah  and  King 
Come  to  South  Carolina— Donnelly  Licen.sed  and  Ordained— Covenanters  Emi- 
grate on  Account  of  Slavery— Brick  Church  Grave-yard.— 1>.  256  to  p.  273. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Facts  of  the  Last  Chapter— Petitions  to  the  Presbyterian  Church— Presbyterian  Mis- 
sionaries—The Conclusion  Likely  to  be  Readied— First  Presbyterian  Minister 
Sent  to  North  Carolina— Presbyterian  Settlers  of  North  Carolina— Cape  Fear  Set- 
tiers— Scotch  Settlers  of  1746-47— Their  History— Battle  of  Cullodeu— Duke  of  Cum- 
berland—George  II Tlie  Scotch  and  the  Pretender— Conditions  on  which  the 

Prisoners  were  Pardoned— Bladen  County  Settlement— Other  Scotch  and  Scotch- 
Irisli  Settlements— The  Harmony  of  tlie  Presbyterians,  Associates  and  Covenant- 
ers, in  North  Carolina— Effects  of  the  Difficulties  with  England— The  Lay  Mem- 
bers of  the  Church  of  Scotland  Always  Friendly— Soundness  in  the  Faith— In 
What  it  Consisted— Introduction  of  Watts'  Imitation  of  the  Psalms— Its  Eflects 
—The  Scotch-Irish  of  North  Carolina — Two  Classes  of  Scotch-Irish— Their  Origin, 
and  Difference- The  Frequency  of  Petitions  from  Virginia  and  North  Carolina — 
The  Associate  Presbj-tery  of  Pennsylvania— From  Wliom  These  Petitions  Came 
— Not  Presbyterians— Associates  in  Virginia— Their  Location— Coalesce  witli  the 
Presbyterian  Church— p.  276  to  p.  281. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Emigration,  After  the  War,  from  Ireland— The  Old  Irish  Volunteer— Emigrants 
from  the  Churches  of  Ballynahinch,  Killeleagh  and  Ahoghil— Their  Certificates- 
Emigrants  Settle  in  South  Carolina— Rev.  Peter  McMuUan  Comes  to  America — 
David  Bothwell  and  James  Rogers  Land  at  Charleston,  December  25, 1789— Both- 
well  Goes  to  Queenstown,  Rogers  to  Fairfield— Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and 
Georgia  Constituted— Members  Present— Congregations  Lender  Its  Supervision 
—Their  Name.s— Dr.  Clark  Clothes  Himself  in  Canonical  Robes— Number  of  Com- 
municants—Burghers and  Anti-Burghers  Coalesce— Covenanters  Stand  Alo'of— 
Character  of  the  Congregations— Dr.  Clark  Dies— Rogers  Ordained  and  Installed— 
Blackstock  Arrives— Boyse  Dies— McMullan  Settles  at  Due  West,  Blackstock  at 


Vlll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

Neely's  Creek — .Jf)hii  Hemphill  Settles  at  Hopewell,  and  McKnighl  at  Coddle 
Creek — Dixon  .Settles  at  King's  Mountain,  Turkey  Creek  and  Bullock's  Creek — 
Alexander  Porter  Settles  in  Dr.  Clark's  Olil  Charge — Charges  Brought  Against 
Mr.  McMullan— McMullan  Suspended— Division  of  the  Presbytery— Broad  River 
the  Dividing  Line— James  McGill  Licensed— David  Bothwell  Dies,  1801— Mr.  Mc- 
Mullan Restored  at  Sharon— Nature  of  Mr.  McMullan's  Difficulty- Messrs.  Mc- 
Mullan and  Dixon  Decline  the  Authority  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church- 
Apply  to  the  Associate  Church— Orgiinized  into  a  Presbytery,  1803— Members  of 
the  Presbytery— The  McMuUan-Dixon  Controversy p.  282  to  |>.  294. 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Organization  of  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas — Members  Present— Changes  Which  Had 
Taken  Place  Since  the  Organization  of  the  Presbytery  ol  the  Carolinasand  Geor- 
gia— Character  of  Those  Who  Organized  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas — Their  Pas- 
toral Charges— Their  Love  for  Each  Other— The  McMuUan-Dixon  Difficulty- 
Course  Pursued  by  the  Synod— Charges  Brought  Against  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  by  McMullan  ann  Dixon— McMullan  and  Dixon  Deposed— Division  in  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church— The  Difference  Between  the  Associate  Reformed  and 
the  Associates— The  Result  of  their  Quarreling— The  Presbytery  of  Chartiers— 
Resolutions  of  the  Associate  Synod  Concerning  Slavery— Rev.  Tliomas  Ketchin 
and  Several  Congregations  Join  the  Associate  Reformed  Church— Remaining 
Hi.story  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas— All  the  Associates  in  the 
South  Coalesced  with  the  Associate  Relormed  Church  in  1st4— Alinisters  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas.— p.  295  to  p.  »05. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

Slow  Growth  of  the  /Vssociale  Reformed  Synod  of  the  Carolinas— Causes  Emigration 
.and  Withdrawals  in  Order  to  Join  the  Associates— Number  of  Communicants  in 
1803- Associate  Congregations  all  in  First  Presbytery— Strength  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas— Its  Rapid  Growth  at  First— Anti-Burghers  All  Join 
jf_Growth  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church— Numl)er  of  Presbyteries  in  1804— 
General  Synod  Organized— Its  Defects— Want  of  Harmony  Among  the  Members 
—Synods  of  Scioto  and  the  Carolinas  Become  Dissatisfied— Lexington  Academy 
Memorial  in  its  Beiialf— Memorial  .Shows  a  Want  of  Confidence  in  the  Theolo- 
gical Seminary— Some  Envious— John  Mason's  Letters — His  Talents — The  Ma- 
son-Matthews and  Clark  Difliculty— .Settled  to  the  Satisfaction  of  NoOne— Synod 
of  Scioto  Withdraws  and  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  Requests  to  be  Allowed  to 
Become  Independent— The  Request  Granted- Synod  of  the  South  Organized— Its 
Platform  the  Constitution  as  Adopted  in  1799— Members  Constituting  the  Synod 
>of  the  South— No  Deaths  in  Nineteen  Years.— p.  306  to  p.  314. 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

Object  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  had  in  View  in  Withdrawing  from  the  General 
Synod— Did  not  Design  Organizing  a  New  Denomination— Their  Constitution 
and  Standards— The  Basis  of  the  Union  which  Formed  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church— Westminster  Confession  of  Faith— Its  History— Westminster  Assenibly 
—By  Whom  Called,  and  for  What— Time  and  Place  for  Meeting— Standards  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church— Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  Adopted  by 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church— Certain  Sections  Changed— These  all  Refer  to 
the  Power  of  the  Civil  Magistrate— The  Sections  Quoted— Standards  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod  of  the  South— Mistaken  Notions  about  the  Withdrawal  of 
the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas— Slavery  had  Nothing  to  Do  with  the  Withdrawal- 
Position  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  with  Reference  to  Slavery 
in  1822— Real  Cause  of  Separation— Believed  that  a  Portion  of  the  General  Synod 
had  Abandoned  the  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church— Subjects  of 
Controversy— Communion  and  Psalmody— The  Standards  Quoted— The  Word 
"  Communion,"  as  LTsed  in  the  Standards— XXVlh  and  XXVIth  Chapters  of  the 
Confession— Little  Con.stitution— The  Overture  Quoted— Act  to  Amend  the  Con- 
stitution Quoted— Mason's  Plea  Published— The  Grounds  Taken  in  It— Psalmody 
—Standards  on  Psalmody  Quoted.— p.  315  to  p.  343. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  IX 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

General  Synod  Dissolved  Soon  After  the  Organization  of  the  Synod  of  the  South- 
Synods  of  New  York,  Scioto  and  of  the  South  Remain—Their  Right  to  the  Theo- 
logical Library  Asserted— Character  of  the  Union  Formed  by  the  General  Synod 
with  the  General  Assembly— Gloomy  Period  in  the  History  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church— Death  of  Irwin,  Rogers,  McKnight,  Blackstock  and  Hemphill— 
Death  of  two  Theological  Students.  McJimsej'  and  Boyce— Dr.  J.  T.  Pressley 
Called  to  Pittsburgh— Samuel  P.  Pressley  went  to  Athens— Missionary  Labors  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  Soutli— Dr.  Cooper  of  South  Carolina  Col- 
lege—Action of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  tlie  South  Concerning  Him— 
His  Charges  Against  Clergymen— Dr.  Cooper's  Influence— The  Part  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  took  in  his  Removal.— p.  344  to  p.  351. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

The  "Want  of  a  College  Retarded  the  Growth  of  the  Synod  of  the  South— Students 
went  North  to  be  Educated— Classical  Schools  Established  in  the  Synod— Theo- 
logical Professors  Appointed— Attempt  to  Reorganize  the  General  Synod— Letter 
Sent  to  the  Synods  of  New  York  and  Scioto— Delegates  Meet  at  Pittsburgh,  on 
the  12th  of  September,  1827— Basis  of  Union  Adopted  and  Sent  to  the  Presby- 
teries—Disapproved and  no  Union  Formed— Union  of  the  Synods  of  New  York 
and  of  the  West  in  1856— The  Sul)ject  of  Slavery  Introduced  into  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  West  by  Emigrants  from  the  .South— Overture  from 
Hopewell,  Ohio— Curious  Facts  in  Respect  to  this  Overture— Anti-Slavery 
Sentiments  of  Soutliern  Origin— The  First  Presbytery  of  Ohio— Its  Pastors 
Born  in  the  South— The  Synod  of  the  South  Memorialize  the  Legislature  of 
South  Carolina— The  People  of  the  United  States  Become  Wildly  Fanatical  on 
Slavei-yi  Pro  and  Con— Synod  of  the  South  Never  Ultra  on  Slavery.— p.  353  to 
p.  363. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

The  Prospects  Brighten  About  1834— Nullification  and  Protective  Tariff  Disturb- 
ance—South Carolinf|jFearfully  Disturbed— Immorality  and  Vice  Increase— Mr. 
Clay's  "Compromise"  of  1833— Peace  and  Quiet  Restored— Number  of  Ministers 
in  the  Synod  in  1834— Their  Names— All  Dead  but  Dr.  Boyce- Change  in  Feeling 
on  Account  of  Slavery— Slavery  Dragged  into  Everything— To  be  Ultra  was  an 
Evidence  of  Loyalty— Friendly  Intercourse  Between  the  North  and  South  Cea.se— 
Resolution  of  the  Synod  of  the  South  in  1834— Its  Object— Resolution  of  1835— Rev- 
Samuel  W.  McCracken  Professor  of  Divinity  for  the  Synod  of  the  South— Politi- 
cians Prejudiced  Against  the  Associate  Reformed  .Synod  of  the  South—Ultra  No- 
tions of  Some— Attempt  to  Found  a  Manual  Labor  School— Failed— Agents  Ap- 
pointed to  Collect  Money,  to  be  Called  an  Educational  Fund— Resolutions  Re- 
specting the  EstalDli.shing  of  a  Seminary  at  Due  West— Report  of  the  Agents- 
Seminary  Opened  February,  1836— Called  Clark  and  ErsUine  Seminary— Theo- 
logical Seminary— Professor  Elected— Rev.  E.  E.  Pressley  Elected  in  1837 -Ers- 
kine  College  Founded.— p.  363  to  p.  372. 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

Effect  of  Erskiue  College  on  the  Synod  of  the  South— A  Great  Undertaking  Nobly 
Executed— Other  Schools  Spring  up  and  Become  Supporters  of  the  College- 
Christian  Magazine  of  the  South  Established- First  Number  Published  Janu- 
ary, 1843— Continued  to  Flourish  for  Nine  Years— Erskine  Miscellany  Begun— 
Strength  of  the  Synod  in  1842— Dr.  Isaac  Grier  Died  1843— His  Connection  with 
the  Synod— Missions  Begun— Associate  Church  a  Missionary  Church— Labors  of 
the  Early  Fathers— Of  Those  who  Succeeded  Them— Missionary  Labors  of  the 
Fathers  Confined  to  the  Home  Field— The  Extent  of  this  Field— Resolution  of 
1817— Missionaries  Sent  West— Length  of  their  Journeys— Funds  Raised— Mis- 
sionaries Sent  West  Annually— Localities  Visited -Young  Men  First  Sent  on  a 
Tour  West— Churches  in  the  West  Founded— Missions  Still  Continued— Foreign 


X  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

Missions— Resolution  of  I83T— Synod  Assists  the  Synod  of  the  North  and  the  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Synod  in  Foreign  Missions — Board  of  Foreign  Missions — 
Rev.  T.  Turner'sResolutionof  1843— African  Mission  Seton  Foot — Failed  Through 
Mismanagement i».  STa  to  p.  384. 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

For  Thirty  Years  only  Two  Presbyteries— Their  Boundaries— Organization  of  the 
Tennessee  Presbytery— Of  the  Alabama,  Kentucky  and  Georgia  Presbyteries— 
Of  the  Memphis  Presbytery— Of  Virginia  Presbytery— Of  Arkansas  Presbytery— 
Of  the  Ohio  Presbytery— Of  the  Texas  Presbytery— Proposed  Union  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church— Tlieir  DifTeronce.- p.  385  to  p.  389. 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

The  War— Its  Canses—Re.sults— State  of  the  Country— Institutions  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Cluirch— Krskine  College— Foreign  Missions— Theological  Seminary— 
Cliristian  Magazine  of  the  South— Erskine  Miscellany- Due  West  Telescope- 
Associate  Reformetl  Presbyterian— Due  West  Female  College p.  390  to  p.  405. 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

Concluding  Chapter— Faith  and  Practice  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church— De- 
nominational Standards— The  Multitude  Always  Wrong— The  Constitution  of 
the  Church  is  the  Bible— Men  do  not  Agree  in  its  Interpretation— Creeds  Neces- 
sary iu  Order  that  there  may  be  Harmony— Divisions  in  the  Church  to  be  De- 
plored—Christian Denominations  Duty  Bound  to  Publish  their  Creeds— Power  of 
Ecclesiastical  Courts— Administrative  not  Legislative  Bodies — Dr.  Samuel  Mil- 
ler Quoted— Creed  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Churcli— Of  the  Synod  of  the  South 
—Judicial  Acts  Passed  by  the  Old  Associate  Relormed  Synod— These  Acts  Never 
Repealed— Still  in  Force  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South— These 
Acts  Endorsed  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  in  18t8— Tract  of 
1871  Quoted— Psalmody  and  Communion  the  Distinctive  Features  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  South.— p.  406  top.  418. 


Associate  Reformed  Presbyteriae  Church. 


CHAPTER  I. 


DIVISIONS  IN  THE  CHURCH— The  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church 
— History  of  the  Associate  Presbytery — Its  Adherence  to  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith — Origin  not  a  Difficulty  About  Communion  or  Psalmody 
—The  Relief  Church— Church  of  Scotland  Previous  to  1733— Recissory  Act — 
Presbyterian  Ministers  Ejected — Presbyterians  Forbidden  to  Preach — James 
II.  Abdicated  the  Throne — "Killing  Time" — William  of  Orange — General 
Assembly  Meets — Presbyterianism  Restored — Its  Character — Cameronians — 
Causes  Which  Led  to  the  Organization  of  Associate  Presbytery — -Christianity 
Introduced  into  Scotland — Form  of  Church  Government — Donald  I.  Baptized 
— Druids  Succeeded  by  the  Culdees — Paladius  Sent  to  Scotland — Lollards  of 
Kyle-Culdees  Suppressed — The  Reformation — First  Confession  of  Faith — 
Revolutionary  ^ttlement — Its  Defects — The  Society  Folk — Cameron  and 
Cargill — -Declaration  of  the  Cameronians — Results  of  Secession — The  Second 
Cause  of  Secession — Church  of  Scotland  Calvanistic — Doctrinal  Notions  of 
Those  Who  Composed  It  After  the  Revolutionary  Settlement — Bishop  Bur- 
net's Statement — Character  of  Presbyterian  Ministers — The  Auchterarder 
Proposition — Craig  Refuses  to  Subscribe  It — Professor  Simson's  Doctrines — 
General  Assembly  Favor  Kim — He  is  not  Censured. 

THE  Church  of  God  has,  by  the  folly  and  wickedness  of 
men,  been  divided  into  a  multitude  of  fragments.  How- 
ever much  this  is  to  be  deplored,  it  has  been  overruled  by  an 
All-wise  God  for  good.  In  these  divisions  in  Israel,  the  King 
and  Head  of  the  Church  has  displayed  His  power  and  mani- 
fested His  wisdom.  He  has  brought  order  out  of  confusion, 
light  out  of  darkness,  and  so  overruled  evil  as  to  make  it  re- 
dound to  His  own  glory  and  the  good  of  His  own  dear  people. 
Nothing  more  convincingly  proves  that  the  Church  is  not  of 
man  than  the  fact  that  it  has  withstood  the  shocks  incident  to 
these  divisions.  In  spite  of  the  persecutions  of  human  govern- 
ments and  the  folly  of  ecclesiastical  courts,  the  Church  of  God 
still  lives  and  grows  and  spreads. 


6  ASSOCIATE    REFORMED    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH. 

The  history  of  the  Church  is  but  the  history  of  God's  provi- 
dential and  o^racious  dealings  with  His  peculiar  people.  To 
understand  this  history  so  as  to  make  a  practical  application  of 
it  in  our  lives,  we  must  have  at  least  a  correct  outline  of  the 
history  of  the  various  branches  of  the  Christian  church.  As 
he  who  would  make  himself  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the 
history  of  the  ancient  Jews  must  first  stud}'  the  history  of  each 
of  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel,  so  he  who  would  understand 
the  history  of  the  Church  must  make  himself  acquainted 
with  the  fragments,  into  which,  unfortunately,  the  Church  is 
divided. 

One  of  the  fragmentary  parts  into  which  the  church  mili- 
tant is  divided,  bears  the  name  Associate  Reformed  Presby- 
terian It  is  our  jiurpose,  in  the  following  pages,  to  trace  the 
origin  and  [irogress  of  this  Christian  denomination,  from  its 
organization  down  to  the  present  time. 

The  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  result 
of  an  union  formally  consummated  between  the  Associate 
Presbyterians  and  the  Reformed  Presbj'terians  of  America,  in 
Philadelphia,  Pa.,  on  the  1st  of  November,  178*2.  The  body 
formed  by  this  union  retained  the  distinctive  names  of  the  de- 
nominations composing  it.  Hence  the  name  Associate  Reformed 
Presbyterian. 

In  order  that  we  may  have  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church,  it  will  be  necessary  that  we  trace  the 
origin  of  both  the  Associate  and  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Churches.  As  there  can  be  no  diftercnce  between  equals,  and 
should  be  no  jealousy  among  brothers,  we  propose  to  treat  of 
the  Associate  first. 


History  of  the  Associate  Presbytery. 


IT  is  now  near  one  liundred  and  fifty  j^ears  since  Ebenezer 
Erskine,  William  Wilson,  Alexander  Moncrieff  and  James 
Fisher  met  at  Gairney  Bridge,  near  Kinross,  in  Scotland,  and 
formed  themselves  into  an  ecclesiastical- body,  which  they  called 
the  Associate  Presbytery.  These  four  venerable  divines  seceded 
from  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland.  Hence  they,  and 
all  of  those  who,  from  that  time  to  the  present,  have  followed 
them,  have  been  called  "  Seceders."  The  name  is  scarcely  .applica- 
ble to  the  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  Still  it  is 
no  disgrace  to  be  called  a  Secede/-.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  hon- 
orable, ^o  event,  if  we  except  the  Reformation  from  Poperj-, 
has  been  productive  of  greater  good,  both  to  the  Church  and 
the  State,  than  the  secession.  Many  persons  in  connection  with 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  and  nearly  all  the  ministers 
and  members  of  other  denominations,  think  that  the  Secession 
Church  had  its  origin  in  a  controversy  about  close  communion 
and  Rouse's  version  of  David's  psalms.  The  general  opinion 
in  this  countrj',  outside  of  the  Associate  Refornied  Church,  is 
that  at  the  time  the  secession  took  place,  all  Scotland,  except 
the  secession  party,  were  in  favor  of  practicing  Catholic  com- 
munion and  singing  Watts'  psalms  and  hymns.  Ebenezer  Ers- 
kine and  his  coadjutors,  they  think,  opposed  these  things  and 
in  a  pet  left  the  church  of  their  fathers.  Whether  the  intro- 
duction of  Watts'  psalms,  instead  of  Rouse's  version,  would 
have  been  just  ground  for  a  secession  from  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, or  not,  we  shall  not  undertake  to  decide.  One  thing, 
however,  is  absolutely  certain,  psalmody  and  close  communion 
had  not  one  thing  to  do  with  bringing  into  existence  the  Se- 
cession Church.  ISTot  one  word,  by  either  party,  was  said  about 
either  Rouse's  version  of  the  psalms  or  Watts'  version.     jNlore 


8  •         HISTORY    OF    THE 

than  this :  "Watts'  version  of  the  psahiis  had  scarcely  at  that 
time,  been  heard  of  in  Scotland.  Neither  party  used  it.  More 
than  this:  the  Church  of  Scotland  never  did,  only  in  isolated 
cases,  use  AVatts'  version  of  the  psalms.  Dr.  "Watts  died  in 
1748,  soon  after  the  secession  took  place.  He  was  an  English- 
man, and  however  well  the  original  Seceders  might  have  been 
pleased  with  his  version  of  the  psalms,  there  was  something 
in  the  creed  of  Dr.  Watts  which  would  have  caused  the  original 
Seceders  to  have  stood  aloof  from  him.  Of  this,  however,  we 
will  speak  in  its  jiroper  place.  The  original  Seceders,  possibl}', 
would  not  have  made  any  serious  objection  to  the  version  of  the 
psalms  prepared  by  Dr.  Watts,  from  the  fact  that  the  psalmody 
question  had  never,  at  that  time,  been  agitated.  Rouse's  version 
was  gotten  up,  or  rather  adopted,  by  the  authority  or  instruc- 
tion of  the  Westminster  Assembly ;  but  it  was  never  used  b}' 
any  denomination  of  Christians.  The  General  Assembly  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  the  month  of  August,  1647,  rati- 
fied the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  revised  Rouse's 
version  of  the  psalms.  This  revision,  not  Rouse's  version,  was 
adopted  and  has  been  in  use,  to  the  almost  absolute  exclusion  of 
all  others,  from  that  time  to  the  present,  in  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land. For  more  than  two  hundred  years  it  has  been  sung  by 
all  the  I*resbyterians,  of  every  name,  in  ever}^  nook  and  corner 
of  that  land.  Neither  psalmody  nor  close  communion,  it  is  cer- 
tain, had  one  single  thing  to  do  in  originating  the  Associate 
Presbytery. 

From  this  Associate  Presbytery  sprung,  in  part,  in  the  course 
of  time,  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  the 
United  Presbyterian  Church  of  North  America,  and  the  Asso- 
I'iate  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  South.  In  all  of 
these  three  denominations,  one  of  the  factors  which  entered  to 
compose  the  denomination,  was  Associate.  The  Associate 
Church  and  the  Relief  Church  united  in  1847,  and  formed  the 
United  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland.  In  1782  the  Asso- 
ciate Church,  or  that  part  of  it  in  America  and  the  Covenanters 
of  America,  or  the  most  of  them,  united  and  formed  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  of  North  America.  In  1858  that 
portion  of  the  Associate  Church  which  had  not  gone  into  the 
union  of  1782,  which  formed  the  Associate  Reformed  Church, 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  '.♦ 

united  witli  tlie  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  the  north  and 
nortliwestcrn  portions  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
formed  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  of  America.  With 
the  exception  of  the  Covenanters,  all  these  sprung  from  the 
secession  which  took  place  on  the  6th  of  December,  1733, 
at  Gairne}-  Bridge,  near  Kinross,  in  Scotland.  The  leader  in 
that  bold  but  noble  secession,  was  that  venerable  servant  of 
God,  Ebenezer  Erskine.  His  worthy  coadjntors  were  William 
Wilson,  Alexander  Moncrieft" and  James  Fisher.  The  original 
Seceders  adopted,  without  alteration,  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  and  the  Catechisms,  Larger  and  Shorter; 
and  those  branches  of  the  church  which  sprung  from  the 
church  they  formed,  have  all  followed  their  example.  The 
Covenanters  did  not  go  into  the  Church  of  Scotland  on  the  re- 
establishing of  that  church  after  the  revolationary  settlement. 
These  faithful  witnesses  for  the  crown  rights  of  the  Lamb  of 
God  did  not  enter  the  Church  of  Scotland,  for  the  same  rea- 
sons, as  we  shall  see,  that  Ebenezer  Erskine  and  his  three  min- 
isterial brethren  were  forced  to  come  out  of  it. 

The  Relief  Church  was  organized  in  1761.  The  leaders  in 
this  secession  were  Revs.  Thomas  Gillespie,  Thomas  Boston 
(son  of  Thomas  Boston,  the  author  of  3Ians  Fourfold  State) 
and  Thomas  Collier.  The  two  iirst  were  the  principal  actors. 
The  causes  which  led  to  the  secession  of  1761,  and  those  which 
led  to  the  secession  of  1733,  were,  in  the  main,  identical.  The 
wonder  is,  that  they  did  not  all  unite  and  form  one  church — 
one  denomination.  The  Covenanters  expected  this.  They 
were  the  more  anxious  for  a  union,  from  the  fact  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Iirst  secession,  they  had  but  one  minister,  Rev. 
John  McMillan,  and  at  the  time  of  the  second,  the  number 
had  increased  but  little.  A  union  was  not  formed  ;  and  al- 
though we  may  not  be  able  to  see  it,  good,  no  doubt,  has  been 
accomplished  by  their  keeping  aloof  from  each  other. 

It  requires  a  somewhat  extensive  and  accurate  knowledge  of 
the  times,  both  during  and  preceding  the  secession  of  1733,  to 
be  able  to  fully  understand  the  actions  of  tlie  Seceders.  Whilst 
they  have  been  called  Seceders,  and  still  the  name  is  given 
to  their  followers,  they  never  claimed  to  be  revolutionists. 
They  never  asked  that  any  portion  of  the  Westminster  Con- 


10  HISTORY    or    THE 

fessiou  of  Faith  and  Catechism,  which  the  Church  of  Scothmd 
had  adopted  should  be  changed  or  amended  in  any  particular 
whatever.  They  claimed  that  they  did  not  secede  from  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  but  from  the  corrupt  party  in  that  church. 
If  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  corrupt,  and  these  men  could 
not,  by  remaining  in  that  church,  purge  it  of  those  corruptions, 
then  they  were  justifiable  in  coming  out  of  it.  ~So  right- 
minded  individual  will  doubt  this. 

Let  us  now  take  a  brief  review  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
previous  to  the  secession  of  1733.  In  1661,  Charles  II.  estab- 
lished prelacy  in  Scotland.  The  "Act  Recissory  "  was  passed, 
by  which  Presbyterianism  was  banished  from  Scotland,  as  far 
iis  it  conld  be  by  the  arm  of  the  law%  and  prelac}'  established. 
Presbyterian  ministers  were  ejected  from  their  pastoral  charges, 
and  prelatic  ])reachers  placed  over  the  congregations,  thus  made 
vacant,  by  violence.  All  the  acts  of  the  Scotch  Parliament, 
from  1638,  with  reference  to  the  reformation  of  the  Church, 
were  annulled.  It  was  made  high  treason  to  renew  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant.  This  struck  a  deadly  blow  at  Presby- 
terianism in  Scotland.  Four  hundred  Presbyterian  ministers 
were  forbidden  to  preach  the  gospel  unless  they  would  first  "  af- 
firm, testify  and  declare  by  their  solemn  oath  that  they  ac- 
knowledged King  Charles  II.  only  supreme  governor  of  Scot- 
land, over  all  persons  and  in  all  causes."  A  very  considerable 
number  of  jtrofessed  Presbyterian  ministers  took  this  oath, 
rather  than  be  deprived  of  their  livings.  The  ejected  minis- 
ters, although  deprived  of  the  use  of  the  churches  in  which  to 
worship  God,  began  to  hold  meetings  in  the  open  fields.  In 
order  to  put  a  sto})  to  field  preaching,  in  1670  this  enactment 
was  made  :  "  That  if  any  man  shall  preach  or  pray  in  the  fields, 
or  in  any  house  where  there  shall  be  more  hearers  than  the 
house  contains,  so  as  some  of  them  Ije  without  doors,  he  shall 
be  punished  with  death  and  confiscation  of  goods."  After  this 
enactment,  it  was  no  uncommon  thing  for  vile  wretches  to  post 
themselves  near  the  houses  of  pious  families  during  the  hour 
of  family  worship.  The  fact  that  they  had  heard  the  head  of 
the  famil}'  praying  was  reported  to  some  government  officer, 
and  tlie  man  who  had  no  other  crime  than  that  some  one  con- 
cealed near  his  house  had  heard  him  praying,  was  put  to  death 


ASSOCIATE    PRKSBVTERV.  11 

and  his  property  contiscated,  and  his  dependent  family  reduced 
to  beg<j^ary.  The  result  of  this  cruel  law  was  to  banish,  for  a 
time,  famil}'  worship  out  of  the  land.  It  was  all  that  a  man's 
life  was  worth  to  be  heard  praying  in  his  own  house.  These 
things  continued  during  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  and  until  his 
brother  and  successor,  James  LL,  abdicated  the  throne  of 
England.  This  period  has,  with  great  propriety,  been  called 
the  ''killing  time."  Charles  il.,  it  was  truthfully  said,  "was 
everything  b\-  starts,  and  nothing  long."  At  one  time  he  was 
a  Protestant ;  at  another  time  a  Catholic  ;  sometimes  a  Presby- 
terian, and  again  a  persecuting  Prelatist ;  in  reality,  a  vile  de- 
ceiver, a  drunkard,  a  debauchee  and  bloodthiristy  monster. 
James  IL  was  a  bigoted  Catholic,  and  designed  nothing  less 
than  subjecting  the  British  dominions  to  the  Pope  of  Rome. 
Both  Charles  II.  and  James  IL  regarded  the  Presbyterians  as 
the  great  obstacle  in  their  way  to  the  restoration  of  Poper3% 
The  s}>irit  of  the  Puritans,  they  no  doubt  concluded  was  bro- 
ken, and  the  Episcopalians,  they  thought,  would  readily  adopt 
Popery.  In  this  they  made  a  miscalculation.  Puritanism  still 
lived,  and  the  Episcopalians,  though  decidedly  and  bigotedly 
opposed  to  the  Presbyterians  and  Puritans,  were,  nevertheless, 
Protestants.  The  Presbyterians  were  first  appointed  to  destruc- 
tion ;  but  the  fury  of  the  monsters  was  at  length  airected  against 
all  Pi'otestants.  The  heart  sickens  at  the  horrid  cruelties  which 
God's  cliosen  ones  were  called  to  suffer  during  this  "  killing 
time.""  The  reign  of  the  wicked,  however  desolating,  is  not 
permitted  to  continue  forever.  The  career  of  James  II.  was 
shortened,  or  not  even  the  elect  would  have  been  saved.  God 
overruled  the  bloody  work  of  these  monsters,  Charles  and 
James,  for  good,  thus  showing  that  he  is  able  to  make  the  wrath 
of  the  wicked  to  praise  him.  Multitudes  of  the  Presbyterians 
were  put  to  death  in  an  endless  variety  of  ways.  Some  tied 
from  their  native  land  and  took  refuge  wherever  they  could 
find  it,  whilst  not  a  few  were  sold  as  slaves  and  brought  to  the 
plantations  in  America,  diaries  II.  attempted  to  banish  Pres- 
byterianism  from  Scotland  by  establishing  Prelacy.  His  secret 
object,  however,  was  to  reinstate  Popery  by  first  introducing 
Episcopacy.  He  was  as  wise  as  a  serpent  and  as  venomous  as 
an  adder.     James  IL,  his  successor,  attempted  to  do  directly 


12  HISTORY    OF    THE 

and  boldly  what  his  wily  brother  had  undertaken  by  a  circuit- 
ous process.  Both  failed,  and  the  Stuarts  were  thwarted  in 
their  nefarious  plans  and  driven  in  disgrace  from  the  throne  of 
England.  It  makes  the  blood  of  a  Protestant,  and  especially 
of  a  Presbyterian,  boil  to  think  of  what  his  covenanted  fathcr.s 
were  made  to  suft'er  by  tliese  fiends  and  their  vile  minions.  No 
man  but  a  tyrant,  or  a  crouching  slave,  w^ill  ever  dare  vindicate 
the  character  of  Charles  II.  or  his  impious  coadjutors. 

James  II;  was  succeeded  by  AVilliam  III.,  commonl}-  called 
I  the  Prince  of  Orange.  William  had  married  Mary,  the  daugh- 
ter of  James  II.  When  James  II.  abdicated  the  throne  of  Eng- 
land, it  was  agreed  that  William  and  Mary  should  nominally 
reiofn  conjointly.  In  reality,  William  was  to  be  the  sovereign. 
In  English  histor}^  this  period  is  known  as  the  Revolutionary 
Settlement,  or  the  Revolution  of  1688.  All  we  need  state  re- 
specting this  Revolution  is  that  l^reslwterianism,  the  ancient 
and,  by  a  majority  of  the  inhabitants,  cherished  form  of  church 
government,  was  restored  to  Scotlan<l.  The  General  Assembly 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  wdiicli  had  not  met  for  more  than 
thirty  years,  now  convened,  and  Presbyterianism  was  restored. 
AV^e  must  not,  however,  conclude  that  it  was  Presbyterianism 
sucli  as  exists  a#  the  present  day,  or  even  such  as  had  once  ex- 
isted in  Scotland.  The  truth  is,  as  avc  hope  to  be  able  to  show, 
from  the  time  the  church  established  by  the  Apostles  was  cor- 
rupted, there  never  existed  any  Bible  Presbyterian  Church  un- 
til the  time  of  the  secession.  The  Covenanters  and  Secession 
fathers  were  a  long  w^ay  in  advance  of  their  age.  This  \vas  not 
any  sin,  or  even  fault,  on  their  part;  but  in  a  worldly  point  of 
view,  it  was  a  misfortune. 

The  reorganization  or  reestablishing  of  Presbyterianism  in 
Scotland,  after  the  Revolutionary  Settlement  was  anomalous 
and  every  way  very  defective.  The  doors  of  the  church  w^ere 
opened  wide  for  any  who  desired  to  enter  it.  In  fact,  it  was 
not  claimed  that  the  Bible  form  of  church  government  is  Pres- 
byterianism. All  that  Avas  claimed,  was  that  Presbyterianism 
was  the  form  of  church  government  at  that  time  established' in 
Scotland.  This  opened  the  door  for  Prelatists  to  enter  the 
church,  and  many  ]^relatists  did  enter  it. 


ASisUL'IATE    I'KESHYTERY.  18 

To  any  reflecting  mind  it  will  readilj'  ap[^ear  that  that  de- 
nomination of  Christians  which  does  not  claim  for  its  form  of 
church  government  anytliing  higher  than  that  it  is  established 
l,)y  the  law  of  the  land,  is  destitute  of  a  firm  base  upon  which 
to  build.  Such  a  denomination  must  change  as  the  State 
changes.  Such  w^as  the  Church  of  Scotland  as  rgDrganized  af- 
ter tlie  overthrown  of  James  II.  As  might  have  been  expected, 
there  was  little  unanimity  of  sentiment  and  less  concert  of  ac- 
tion. Within  its  pale  there  were  Presbyterians  and  Prelatists, 
Calvinists,  Pelagians,  Socinians,  Arminians  and  Arians.  This 
heterogeneous  mass  soon  began  to  show  signs  of  putrefaction. 
"We  cannot  too  much  admire  the  often-abused,  and  to  this' day 
vilely  slandered  Cameronians  for  nc)t  going  into  this  church. 
The  wonder  is  not  that  the  secession  took  place  in  1733,  but 
that  it  did  not  take  place  sooner,  and  that  when  it  did  occur, 
that  the  number  was  only  four.  Had  the  Presbyterian  system 
of  church  government  been  understood  then  as  it  is  understood 
by  some  at  the  present  day,  the  honor,  of  the  secession  of  1733 
would  have  been  shared  by  a  far  greater  number  of  persons. 
Oppression  and  cruelty,  however,  had  made  the  multitude 
timid,  and  the  general  corruption  of  the  period  had  produced 
carelessness  in  the  minds  of  nearly  all. 

The  causes  wdiich  led  to  the  organization  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  or  to  the  founding  of  the  Secession  Church,  may 
be  summed  up  under  three  heads  :  1st.  A  mongrel  Presb}-- 
terian  form  of  church  government.  2nd.  Heterodox  doc- 
trines, or  doctrines  manifestly  in  conflict  with  those  laid 
down  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  3rd.  The  un- 
righteous and  consequently  oppressive  law  of  patronage. 

The  form  of  church  government  which  was,  at  an  early 
period,  adopted  by  the  Scotch,  w^as  clearly  Presbyterian.  An- 
cient historians  tell  us  that  it  was  during  the  Second  Persecu- 
tion. In  A.  J).  95  Domitian  assumed,  for  the  seventeentli 
time,  the  consulship  of  Pome.  That  same  year  he  began,  on 
account  of  his  rapacity,  to  persecute  the  Jews.  The  Romans 
had  not,  at  that  time,  learned  to  distinguish  between  Jews  and 
Christians,  and  consequently  Jews  and  Christians  wereeqnally 
subjected  to  horrid  cruelties.  Many  of  these  despised  people 
fled  from  the  country,  that  they  might  escape  the  monster.    Of 


14  HISTORY    OF    THE 

those  who  remained  some  were  put  to  death,  while  others  were 
banished  to  dreary  abodes.  John  was  l^anished  to  Patmos, 
where  Jesns  Christ  was  pleased  to  reveal  to  him  "  thino's  which 
must  shortly  come  to  pass."  At  the  same  time,  some  individ- 
uals, whose  names  have  not  been  recorded,  fled  to  Scotland, 
and  in  that 

"  Land  of  the  brown  heath  and  shaggy  wood, 
Land  of  the  mountain  and  the  flood," 

propagated  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  Whoever  these  refu- 
gees were,  they  had  learned  the  principles  of  the  Christian 
religion  from  the  apostles  and  early  disciples  of  our  Lord.  It 
is  possible  that  some  of  them  had  seen  the  Lord  himself  and 
learned  lessons  of  wisdom  from  him  who  "  spoke  as  never  man 
spake."  The  influence  of  these  Christians  was  very  great. 
Paganism  gradually  gave  way,  and  about  the  year  A.  D.  203, 
Donald  I.,  together  with  his  household  and  many  of  the  nobles, 
made  a  public  profession  of  Christianity  and  were  bajjtized  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinitj'. 

In  the  year  A.  D.  277,  during  the  reign  of  King  Crathilinth, 
Christianity  greatly  flourished.  At  this  time  a  number  of 
ministers  of  the  gospel  and  private  Christians,  banished  by 
Aurelius  and  Dioclesian,  fled  to  Scotland.  The  Druids  and 
their  idolatrous  worship  melted  awa}-  before  the  sun  of  right- 
eousness. The  idolatrous  Druids  were  succeeded  by  the  yiious 
Culdees.  Manifestl}^,  the  form  of  church  government  first  es- 
tablished in  Scotland  was  Presbyterianism.  It  was  the  same 
as  that  established  b}^  the  Apostles  of  our  Lord.  Each  pastor 
was  a  bishop.  In  other  words,  there  were  as  many  bishops  as 
there  were  pastoral  charges,  and  the  number  of  ruling  elders 
in  each  congregation  was  about  eight.  This  form  of  church 
government  continued  in  Scotland  until  the  arrival  of  Paladins, 
in  the  3^ear  A.  D.  452.  Paladius  was  sent  to  Scotland  by  Pope 
Celestine.  Simple  Presbyterianism  began  gradually  to  be  ex- 
changed for  Popery,  which  continued  until  the  appearance  of 
the  Lollards,  of  Kyle,  in  1494. 

The  conflict  between  truth  and  falsehood  now  began.  The 
struggle  was  long  and  sore.  Many  eminent  servants  of  the 
Lord  perished  in  the  efl:brt  to  redeem  Scotland  from  the  thral- 
dom of  Popery.     The  Culdees  were  suppressed   in  the   year 


ASSOCIATE    PKESBYTERY.  15 

1297,  and  darkness  and  gloom  hung  over  the  land.  All  Avas 
night,  except  a  few  stars  which  refused  to  be  obscured  by  the 
lowering  clouds  of  ignorance  and  superstition. 

Error  may  flourish  for  a  short  time ;  but  it  must  die.  Truth 
cannot  die.  The  Reformation  began  in  1494  with  the  Lollards, 
of  Kyle,  and  was  accomplished  in  1560,  mainly  through  the 
instrumentality  of  John  Knox.  In  1560,  the  First  Confession 
of  Faith  was  adopted.  From  the  first  introduction  of  the 
gospel  into  Scotland,  up  to  the  time  of  the  Eevolutionary  Set- 
tlement, the  mass  of  the  best  people  in  Scotland  were  Presby- 
terians. They  believed  that  Presbyterianism  is  the  Bible  form 
of  church  government.  When  the  Presbyterian  Church  was 
reorganized,  during  the  reign  of  William  the  Prince  of  Orange,. 
it  was  not  claimed  that  the  Bible  contains  any  form  of  church 
government.  Those  who  entered  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Scotland  at  that  time  did  not  subscribe  to  its  Confession  of 
Faith  as  sanctioned  by  the  Word  of  God.  The  strictly  Pres- 
byterian ministers  had  all  been  ejected  during  the  reign  of  the 
two  previous  kings.  At  the  time  of  the  Revolutionary  Settle- 
ment, only  about  sixty  of  these  remained  alive.  Xo  small 
number  of  the  ejected  ministers  had  traitorously  deserted  Pres- 
byterianism and  o;one  over  to  Prelacy.  These  were  taken  into 
the  Presbyterian  church  on  its  reorganization.  This  is  not  all. 
The  Episcopal  ministers  who  were  settled  in  Scotland,  also 
were  taken  into  the  new  organization. 

The  majority  of  the  Scotch  people  were  Presbyterian  in 
their  sentiments,  but  the  ministers  were  divided  in  their  opin- 
ions respecting  church  government.  There  were  the  sixty  old 
ejected  ministers  who  had  never  deserted  the  Presbyterian 
banner  during  the  past  persecutions,  and  there  were  those  who 
cared  nothing  whatever  about  the  form  of  church  government. 
Some  of  the  latter  class  had  once  been  Presbyterians,  but  that 
the}'  might  enjoy  the  revenues  of  the  church,  they  joined  the 
Episcopal  Church  when  that  was  in  power,  and  now  they  went 
into  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  the  same  reasons.  The  third 
class  consisted  of  those  ministers  who  preferred  Prelacy  to 
Presbyterianism,  but  who  went  into  the  Presbyterian  Church 
for  the  same  reasons  that  some  of  the  Presbyterian  ministers 
had  formerly  ^one  into  the  Episcopal  Church.     That  every 


16  HISTORY    OF    THE 

one  might  feel  easy  in  the  new  <;hurch,  the  terms  of  admission 
were  made  as  easy  as  possible.  The  boast  was  made  that  no 
one,  no  matter  what  were  his  notions  respecting  church  govern- 
ment, was  disturbed  in  this  newly-organized  church. 

It  makes  no  sort  of  diifcrence  what  may  be  our  individual 
notions  respecting  church  government,  we  are  warranted  in 
saying  that  this  Was  a  strange  mixing  up  of  things.  The  re- 
sults would  have  been  identical  liad  the  effort  been  to  establish 
a  nominal  Prelatic  church  in  Scotland.  Nothing  more  was 
aimed  at  than  simply  to  organize  a  nominal  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  nothing  more  was  effected.  So  far  as  the  laity 
was  concerned,  the  majority  of  the  Scotch  was  in  favor  of  the 
Presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  but  the  clergy  was 
divided.  The  few  were  strict  Presbyterians ;  the  multitude 
either  Prelatists  or  criminally  indifferent  on  the  subject  of 
church  government.  The  rigid  Presbyterians  were  charged 
with  being  unreasonable.  The  prevailing  sentiment  was,  that 
no  one  should  be  disturbed,  in  any  way,  about  his  notions  con- 
cerning church  government.  Peace,  on  this  subject,  was  cvery- 
tliing  ;  truth  nothing.  Any  one  can  see  that  such  a  church  or- 
gavdzation  was  poorly  fitted  to  beget  confidence  in  the  wise  and 
prudent.  Men  are  so  constituted  that  they  will  live  more  har- 
moniously together  under  a  bad  form  of  government,  when 
that  form  of  government  is  heartih'  approved  and  sincerely 
adopted,  than  under  a  good  form  of  government  when  it  is 
adopted  as  a  mere  matter  of  polic\%  The  simple  truth  is,  that 
the  Scotch  Church,  at  the  time  of  the  Revolutionary  Settle- 
ment, acted,  to  a  culpable  extent,  the  part  of  a  wheedling  poli- 
tician. The  Presbyterian  portion  admitted,  as  a  mere  matter 
of  policy,  the  Prelatist  to  full  membership,  and  for  a  similar 
reason,  the  Prelatists  entered  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

What  could  be  more  inconsistent,  than  for  the  bishops  and 
other  clergy  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland,  as  estab- 
lished by  Charles  II.  to  meet  in  presbyteries,  synods  and  gen- 
eral assemblies  with  those  Presbyterians  whom  they  had,  in 
some  sense,  former]}"  driven  from  their  pastoral  charges  't  These 
men  had  been  bitterly  opposed  to  each  other.  The  change  of 
English  sovereigns  could  not  change  their  individual  opinions. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  1  ( 

Each  party  hoped  that  b}^  being  politic  in  its  movements, 
it  might  get  some  advantage  over  the  other.  The  object  was 
to  steal  a  march  and  obtain  a  more  favorable  time  and  place 
for  the  decisive  conflict. 

The  struggle  came  ;  but  not  at  the  time,  nor  in  the  way  that 
was  expected.  It  came  of  necessity.  Parties  diametrically 
opposed  to  each  other  had  formed  a  nominal  coalescence ;  indi- 
viduals entertaining  dissimilar  opinions  concerning  church 
government,  had,  for  purposes  of  policy,  placed  themselves  on 
the  same  platform  and  under  the  same  banner.  Their  differ- 
ences were  not  concerning  those  things  about  which  men  ma}' 
disagree  and  still  be  united  ;  but  their  quarrels  were  about  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian  religion. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  there  always  was  in  Scotland 
a  respectable  number  of  individuals  who  did  not  go  into  this 
newly-organized  Presb3'terian  Church.  These  were  the  "  So- 
ciety Folk,"  or  Covenanters.  The  misfortune  of  these  people 
was,  that  they  were  fully  a  century  ahead  of  the  men  of  their 
age.  Like  John  the  Baptist,  they  were  the  forerunners  of  a 
better  day  ;  and  like  John  the  Baptist,  many  of  them  were  be- 
headed. Richard  Cameron  and  Donald  Cargill  were  the  only 
ministers  whom  these  pious  people  would  acknowledge  ;  and 
both  of  them  were  called  upon,  in  the  providence  of  God,  to 
<lie  for  the  cause  which  they  had  espoused.  Cameron  fell  at 
Airdsmoss.  His  head  and  hands  were  cut  off  and  taken  to 
Edinburgh.  There  they  were  exposed  in  a  conspicuous  place, 
to  be  gazed  upon  alike  by  friends  and  foes.  He  to  whom  was 
assigned  this  last  office,  said,  while  engaged  in  the  work : 
*'  These  are  the  head  and  hands  of  the  man  who  lived  preaching 
and  praying,  and  died  fighting  and  praying."  This  was  lit- 
erally true ;  for  previous  to  going  into  the  conflict,  he  tenderly- 
praj'ed  :  "  Lord,  spare  the  green  and  take  the  ripe."  Cargill 
was  spared,  but  only  that  he  might  be  murdered  because  he 
had  dared  to  excommunicate  from  the  privileges  of  the  church 
Oharles  II.  and  several  other  individuals,  who  had  been  proved 
guilty  of  drunkenness,  hypocrisy,  perjury,  murder  and  adul- 
tery. These  bold,  and  perhaps,  we  may  say,  to  some  extent, 
imprudent  men,  were  permitted  to  give  utterance  to  sentiments 
which  are  worth}'  of  free  men.     "  AVe,"  say  they,  "  declare 


18  HISTORY    OF    THE 

that  we  shall  set  up  over  ourselves,  and  over  what  God  shall 
give  us  power  of,  government  and  governors  according  to  the 
word  of  God."  They  farther  declare  that  they  shall  no  more 
commit  the  government  of  themselves  and  the  making  of  laws 
for  them  to  a  single  person.  Right  or  wrong,  they  were  the 
hold  advocates  of  a  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government, 
and  fearlessly  proclaimed  to  the  world  a  system  of  civil  gov- 
ernment, which  the  rest  of  mankind  were  not,  at  that  time, 
prepared  to  adopt.  In  the  declarations  of  these  despised  Cove- 
nanters, we  easily  discover  the  germ  of  the  American  Constitu- 
tion. 

From  the  Church  of  Scotland,  re-organized  as  we  have  stated 
above,  the  founders  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  seceded.  One 
cause  of  the  secession  was,  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  claimed 
to  be  Presbyterian,  whilst  in  reality,  it  was  only  partly  so. 
The  result  of  the  secession  was  that  a  complete  change  has 
been  effected  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  every  portion  of 
the  world.  It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  those  Presbyterian 
Churches,  which,  in  their  mode  of  worship  and  formulas  of 
doctrine  most  closely  approach  the  Associate  Fathers  and  Cove- 
nanters, present  the  truest  type  of  Presbyterianism.  Right  or 
wrong,  we  need  not  stop  to  enquire,  the  Seceders  have  revolu- 
tionized and  puriffed  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  Seced- 
ers, Covenanters  and  Puritans  have  revolutionized  the  civil 
governments  of  the  world. 

The  second  cause  of  the  secession  was  unscriptural  doctrines,, 
mainly  respecting  the  divinity  of  our  Sfiviour  and  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  atonement. 

When  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  reorganized  after  the 
Revolutionary  Settlement,  it  was  no  more  a  unit  on  the  cardi- 
nal doctrines  of  the  Cross  than  it  was  with  respect  to  church 
government. 

Strictly  speaking,  it  is  not  the  province  of  the  historian  to 
decide  respecting  systems  of  doctrine,  as  to  which  is  orthodox 
and  which  is  heterodox.  The  business  of  the  historian  is  sim- 
ply and  truthfully  to  state  facts  and  their  results. 

Such  being  the  case,  we  may  state  that  from  its  beginning, 
the  Church  of  Scotland  has  ever  claimed  to  be  Calvanistic  in 
its  creed.     Such   it  claimed  to  be  when  reoro;anized  in  1688.. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  19 

TIiG  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  Catechism, 
Larger  and  Shorter,  which  are  plainly  Calvinistic,  were  adopted 
as  expressive  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  church. 

•Still,  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  a  church  to  have  a  good 
creed  and  a  wretchedly  bad  practice.  Without  much  effort 
numerous  instances  might  be  cited  to  prove  that  the  confes- 
sions of  faith  of  churches  and  the  actual  belief  and  the  practices 
of  those  churches  are  palpably  antagonistic.  Like  the  wit- 
nesses against  our  Saviour,  they  agree  not  with  one  another. 
Li  theory,  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  1688,  adopted  a  Calvin- 
istic creed,  but  in  reality  it  was  a  mass  of  repugnant  isms. 

This  was  the  case  with  respect  to  the  ministers,  and  par- 
tially true  of  the  people.  In  a  doctrinal  point  of  view,  the 
ministers  of  this  newly-organized*  Presbyterian  Church  were 
greatly  divided.  Those  of  the  old  ejected  ministers  who  still 
were  alive,  were  generally  strict  Calvinists  ;  the  others  were 
Arminians,  Socinians  and  Arians  in  doctrine,  and  Erastians  in 
church  government.  On  the  great  cardinal  doctrines  of  the 
Cross,  they  differed  with  each  other.  These  all  went  into  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  whilst  only  a  small  part  of  them  were  in 
reality  Calvanistic  Presbyterians  in  sentiment. 
.  It  matters  not  which  one  of  the  various  parties  forming  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  at  the  period  of  Avhich  we  are  treating, 
could  lay  the  highest  claim  to  a  Scriptural  orthodoxy,  or 
whether  any  of  them  was  orthodox.  All  that  is  incum- 
bent upon  us  at  present  is  to  show  that  parties  differing 
with  each  other  on  the  fundamentals  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, did  unite  and  form,  what  the  majority  of  them,  from 
mercenary  motives,  were  content  should  be  called  a  Presby- 
terian Church.  That  such  an  union  was  formed  must  be  man- 
liest to  any  one  who  will  reflect  upon  the  fact  that  the  bishops 
and  other  prelatic  clergymen,  who  had  been  settled  in  Scotland 
during  the  reign  of  the  two  former  kings,  as  well  as  the  Presbj'- 
terian  ministers,  were  actively  concerned  in  the  reorganization 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  iSTo  concessions  were  made  by 
either  party.  The  Episcopal  bishops  and  clergymen  were, 
after  they  entered  the  National  Presbyterian  Church,  what- 
ever they  were  before  they  entered  it.  The  principal  section 
in  the  articles  of  tliat  amalgamation  which   took  jilace  in  the 


20  HISTORY    OF    THE 

reorguniziDg  of  the  l*rosbyteriaii  Church  of  Scotland  after 
the  restoration,  was  that  the  parties  should  not  disturb  each 
other  respecting  their  religious  beliefs.  This  section,  it  is  true, 
was  not  written  ;  but  it  was,  with  a  few  exceptions,  adopted 
by  the  ministers  and  rigidly  practiced  by  nearly- all. 

It  seems  strange  that  the  bishops,  who,  in  a  particular  sense 
had  been  actively  connected  with  the  recent  persecutions,  could 
dare  to  face  those  whom  they  had  been  instrumental  in  sub- 
jecting to  so  much  deprivation  and  suffering.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  marvelous  that  the  Presbyterian  ministers  per- 
mitted the  prelatic  party  to  enter  the  Presbyterian  Church 
without  first  demanding  of  them  an  humble  confession  of  past 
offences  and  a  promise  that  in  future  they  would  be  faithful. 
Our  wonder  ceases  when  we  reflect  that  the  prospects  of  peace 
incited  forgetfuliiess  in  tVie  minds  of  the  Presbyterian  min- 
isters, and  the  uncertainty  in  their  minds  whether  that  anxiously 
looked  for  peace  would  be  permanent,  made  them  cautious 
even  to  timidit}'.  They  trembled,  lest  by  a  misguided  and  ill- 
timed  blow,  they  might  resuscitate  the  prostrate  monster. 
With  the  prelatic  clergymen  it  was  different.  They  were  re- 
duced to  that  state  that  they  had  to  choose  either  to  enter  the 
Presbyterian  Church  or  deprive  themselves  of  all  pecuniar}" 
su[)port  by  the  Nati^onal  Church.  As  the  consciences  of  many 
of  them  were  not  very  tender,  thej''  were  not  slow  in  making  a 
choice.  A  few  years  before,  it  may  be  added,  a  number  of 
Presbyterian  ministers  had,  for  the  sake  of  a  comfortable  liv- 
ing, gone  into  the  Episcopal  Church  for  the  same  reason  that 
the  Episcopal  clergymen  now  went  into  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

On  the  principle  that  what  a  man  sows  that  shall  he  also  reap, 
^ve  might  expect  to  lind  a  church  composed  of  such  discordant 
elements  producing  very  dissimilar  fruit.  Such  was,  in  reality, 
the  case.  In  Scotland  there  were,  at  that  time,  eight  hundred  and 
ninety  parishes.  Of  these,  four  hundred  were  supplied  by  cu- 
rates belonging  to  the  Episcopal  Cluirch.  The  greater  number 
of  the  remaining  parishes  were  vacant,  and  those  not  vacant 
weie  occupied  by  apostate  Presbyterian  clergymen.  By  apos- 
tate l^resbyterian  clergymen  we  mean  Presbyterian  ministers. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  21 

who  durins;  the  persecutions  in  the  time  of  Charles  11.  and 
James  II.,  complied  with  the  demands  of  the  sovereigns,  that 
they  might  enjoy  the  loaves  and  the  fishes  of  the  government. 

So  far  as  churcli  government  and  notions  concerning  the  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  the  Bible  are  concerned,  there  was  no 
harmony  among  the  leading  men  who  composed  the  Church  of 
Scotland  at  the  time  of  its  reorganization  after  the  Revolution 
of  1688.  It  Avas  not  long  until  the  fruits  of  this  union  became 
manifest.  Bishop  Burnet,  in  speaking  of  the  Episcopal  incum- 
bents, uses  the  following  language:  "They  were  the  worst 
preachers  I  ever  heard ;  they  were  ignorant  to  a  reproach,  and 
many  of  them  were  clearly  vicious.  They  were  a  disgrace  to 
their  orders,  and  were,  indeed,  the  dregs  and  refuse  of  the 
northern  parts.  Those  of  them  that  rose  above  contempt  and 
scandal  were  men  of  such  violent  tempers  that  they  were  as 
much  hated  as  the  others  were  despised."  The  same  might  be 
said  concerning,  perhaps,  a  majority  of  the  Presbyterian  cler- 
gymen. AVith  the  exception  of  the  ejected  preachers,  most  of 
vrhom  were  old  and  worn  out  with  cares  and  troubles,  and  the 
few  who  inclined  to  the  Cameronians,  the  other  Presbyterian 
clergymen  belonged  to  that  class  of  men  who  are  "  carried 
about  with  everj'  wind  of  doctrine,"  Thev  were  willing  to 
profess  one  thing  to-day  and  the  very  opposite  thing  to-mor- 
row. For  the  sake  of  peace,  they  were  willing  to  subscribe  to 
any  thing,  and  that  they  might  enjoy  the  livi^ig  granted  bj^the 
church,  they  Vv'ere  prepared  to  change  their  creed  as  often  as 
Laban  changed  Jacob's  wages.  Such  men  could  be  depended 
upon  by  no  part}'.  They  were  ever  found  in  the  ranks  of  that 
party  which  appeared  to  be  most  powerful  and  and  most  pop- 
ular. Jjike  Charles  IT.,  they  were  "every  thing  by  starts,  and 
nothing  long." 

It  is  not  true  that  a  bad  beginning  makes  a  good  ending.  A 
bad  beginning  must  terminate  badly.  Neither  is  it  true  that 
the  motive,  in  every  instance,  gives  character  to  the  act.  No 
doubt,  the  motive  of  Saul  in  oifering  up  a  burnt  ofliering  and 
peace  offerings,  was  good.  Certainly  Saul  though  his  motive 
w^as  good  ;  but  God  charged  him  with  gross  folly  in  that  thing. 
He  kept  not  the  commandment  of  God,  although  he  most  cer- 
tainly thought  he  acted  from  proper  motives.     Whatever  may 


22  HISTORY    OF    THE 

have  been  the  motives  of  those  actively  concerned  in  the  reor- 
ganization of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  they  cer- 
tainly acted  very  foolishly,  in  that  they  formed  a  union  out  of 
material  so  palpal)ly  incongruous.  The  end  was  like  the  Ije- 
ginning.  It  was  not  long  until  it  became  a  very  common  thing 
for  the  ministers  to  teach  that  sinners  must  prepare  themselv^es 
before  coming  to  Christ.  One  of  the  Presbyteries  (Auchter- 
arder)  in  order  to  check  the  progress  of  this  unscriptural  doc- 
trine, rerpiired  candidates  for  license  to  sign  the  following  pro- 
position: "  1  believe  that  it  is  not  sound  and  orthodox  to  teach 
that  we  must  forsake  our  sins  in  order  to  our  coming  to  Christ 
and  instating  us  in  covenant  with  God,"  This  proposition 
seems  to  be  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  whole  scope  of  the 
Scriptures.  Our  Saviour  says:  "The\'  that  be  whole  need  not 
a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick."  If  the  sinner  of  himself 
can  forsake  his  sins,  it  is  very  diiHcult  to  understand  for  what 
purpose  he  should  go  to  Christ.  The  experience  of  all  God's 
people  is  that  it  is  only  through  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  sinners  are  enabled  to  break  off 
their  sins.  Before  the  sinner  can  forsake  his  sins,  hf  must  be 
born  again — born  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence,  to  talk  about  tlie 
sinner  forsaking  his  sins  before  lie  comes  to  Christ,  is  mani- 
festly the  same  thing  as  to  say  that  the  sinner  must  save  him- 
self before  he  comes  to  Christ  to  be  saved. 

There  is  no  sort  of  doubt  concerning  the  agreement  of  this 
proposition  of  the  Auchterarder  Presb3-tery  and  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  of  Faith.  Such  being  the  case,  it  was  but  rea- 
sonable to  suppose -that  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  ot 
Scotland  would  have  given  to  the  proposition  its  hearty  ap- 
proval. The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
Larger  and  Shorter,  had  been  adopted  as  the  standards  of  that 
Cdiurch,  and  consequently,  to  have  approved  of  the  proposition, 
would  have  been  only  acting  consistentl}'.  Such,  however,  was 
not  the  case. 

The  Presbj'tery  of  Auchterarder  refused  to  license  a  Mr. 
Craig,  because  lie  would  not  subscribe  to  this  proposition. 
Craig  brought  the  matter  before  the  General  Assembly,  and  the 
result  was  tliat  the  Presbytery  was  ordered  to  give  him  his  li- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERV.  28 

cense.  This  was  not  all.  The  proposition  was  scoffingly  called 
"the  Anchterarder  Creed,"  and  the  members  of  the  Presbyter}- 
were  charged  not  to  use,  in  the  future,  any  such  expressions  as 
those  contained  in  this  creed. 

To  the  Assembly  or  1717,  the  same  which  passed  sentence 
upon  the  Anchterarder  proposition,  it  was  clearly  proved  that 
John  Sinison,  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Glas- 
gow, was  accustomed  to  teach,  in  his  lectures  to  the  students, 
doctrines  alike  opposed  to  the  word  oi"  God  and  the  subordinate 
standards  of  the  Church.  That  the  reader  nui}-  know  exactly 
Avhat  these  doctrines  were,  we  give  them  in  the  language  ot 
Professor  Simson  himself: 

"That  by  the  hght  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  creation  and  Providence, 
God  has  given  an  obscure,  objective  revelation  of  the  Gospel ;  and  that  it  is 
probable  none  are  excluded  from  the  benefit  of  the  remedy  for  sin  provided 
by  God  and  published  twice  to  the  whole  world,  except  those  who,  by  their 
actual  sin,  exclude  themselves,  and  slight  and  reject  the  clear  light  of  the 
Gospel  revealed  to  the  Church,  or  that  obscurer  discovery  and  offer  of  gi'ace 
made  to  all  without  the  Church  ;  and  that  if  the  heathen  would,  in  sincerity 
and  truth,  and  in  the  diligent  use  of  means  that  Providence  lays  to  their 
hand,  seek  from  God  the  knowledge  of  the  way  of  reconciliation,  necessary 
for  their  acceptable  serving  of  Him,  and  being  saved  by  Him,  he  would  dis- 
cover it  to  them.'' 

In  this  language  there  is  no  small  amount  of  that  metaphys- 
ical obscurity  which  always  characterized  its  wily  author.  His 
case  had  been  on  hand  for  three  years,  or  since  the  Assembly 
of  1714,  and  he  was  careful  to  feel  his  way.  He  knew,  as  well 
as  any  man  in  the  church,  what  were  the  doctrines  of  the  Con- 
fession  of  Faith,  and  he  knew  that  his  teachings  were  subver- 
sive of  the  doctrines  contained  in  that  Confession  of  Faith. 

From  this  language  of  Professor  Simson,  it  is  evident  that 
he  taught  that  there  are  two  ways  by  which  sinners  may,  if 
they  will,  obtain  salvation.  The  one  is  by  following  the  light 
of  nature  as  revealed  in  the  works  of  creation  and  Providence, 
and  the  otiier  is  by  believing  in  Jesus  Christ  as  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures.  It  is  also  evident  that  Professor  Simson  places  the 
ground  of  the  sinner's  condemnation,  in  either  refusing  to  fol- 
low the  light  of  nature,  or  in  rejecting  the  Saviour. 


24  HISTORY    OF    THE 

However  plausible  this  may  appear,  it  is  not  in  harmony 
with  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  which  Professor  Sim- 
son  had  adopted,  and  it  is  in  plain  conflict  with  the  Word  of 
God.  To  show  that  it  is  opposed  to  the  subordinate  standards 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
quote  the  answer  to  the  sixtieth  question  in  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism : 

"  They  wl)o,  having  never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ,  and 
believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they  ever  so  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  or  the  laws  of  that  religion  which  they 
profess  ;  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  but  in  Christ  alone." 

The  Churcli  of  Scotland,  of  which  John  Simsou  was  an  hon- 
ored member,  had  adopted  this  as  expressive  of  its  belief  on  the 
subject  of  which  it  treats.  ISTothing  can  be  more  glaring  than 
the  conflict  which  subsists  between  the  doctrines  taught  by  the 
Glasgow  professor  and  the  Larger  Catechism.  Professor  Sim- 
son  taught  that  men  can  be  saved  \)y  sincerely  and  diligently 
seeking  God  according  to  the  light  of  nature.  •  In  other  words, 
he  taught  that  God  has  appointed  two  ways  by  which  sinners 
may  be  saved  from  their  sins.  This  will  appear  to  be  a  fair  de- 
duction from  the  following  language  used  by  the  Professor  in 
answer  to  the  lil)el  which  was  presented  against  him  by  Rev. 
James  AVebster,  of  Edinburgh  :  "  There  are,"  he  says,  "  Means 
appointed  of  God  for  obtaining  saving  grace,  which  means, 
when  diligently  used  with  seriousness,  sincerely  and  faith  of 
being  heard,  God  has  promised  to  bless  with  success;  and  the 
going  about  tliese  means  in  the  foresaid  manner,  is  not  above 
the  reach  of  our  natural  ability  and  power." 

We  admit  that  there  are  some  metaph^^sical  mazes  concealed 
in  the  verbiage  of  the  Professor;  but  if  his  language  means 
anything,  it  means  that  there  is  a  Avay  of  salvation  with  which 
Jesus  Christ  has  nothing  whatever  to  do,  and  that  man  in  his 
natural  state,  and  v/ith  no  other  help  except  his  natural  ability 
and  powei',  can  discover  that  way  and  be  saved.  We  take  it 
for  granted  that  Professor  Simson  believed  that  sinners  could 
be  saved  through  Jesus  Christ.  If  so,  then  it  is  fair  to  infer 
that  he  believed  and  taught  that  there  are  two  ways  by  which 
men  can  be  saved  from  their  sins. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  2o 

In  addition  to  tije  above,  rrotes?or  Sinison  declared,  in  his 
answer  to  AVebster's  libel,  that : 

'•It  is  inconsistent  with  the. iustice  of  God  to  create  a  soul  without  any 
original  righteousness  or  any  disposition  to  good  ;  and  that  the  souls  of  infautsj 
since  the  fall,  as  they  come  from  the  hands  of  their  Creator,  are  as  pure  and 
holy  as  the  souls  of  infants  would  have  been  created,  supposing  man  had  not 
fallen  ;  and  that  they  are  created  as  pure  and  holy  as  Adam's  was,  except  as 
to  those  qualifications  and  habits  which  he  received,  as  being  created  in  an 
adult  state." 

Here  he  again  flies  in  the  face  of  both  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Bible.  The  latter  teaches  that  men,  so  far  from  having 
in  infancy,  pure  and  holy  souls,  were  shapen  in  iniquity,  and 
in  sin  did  their  mothers  conceive  them  ;  and  the  former  teaches 
that  all  mankind  sined  in  Adam  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first 
transgression,  and  that  original  sin  is  conveyed  from  Adam  to 
his  posterity,  by  ordinar}^  generation,  so  as  all  that  proceed 
from  him  in  that  way,  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin. 

The  case  of  Professor  Simson  was  brought  to  the  notice  of 
the  Assemblv  of  1714,  but  was  not  terminated  until  1717.  It  was 
evident,  from  the  beginning,  that  the  majority  of  the  members 
of  the  Assembl}"  were  opposed  to  having  anything  to  do  with 
the  case.  It  was  proposed  by  Rev.  James  Webster,  who  called 
the  attention  of  the  Assembly  of  1714:  to  the  reports  concern- 
ing the  teaching  of  heterodox  doctrines,  by  Professor  Simson, 
that  the  matter  be  investigated  bj'the  Assembl}'.  This  course 
the  Assembly  postively  refused  to  take  ;  but  appointed,  or  rather 
permitted  Mr.  Webster  and  an}-  others  who  might  join  him,  to 
lay  in  their  complaint  against  Professor  Simson  before  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Glasgow.  The  Assembly  refused  to  be  responsible 
for  any  thing  Mr.  Webster  and  his  adherents  might  do,  but 
intimated  ver}^  plainly  that  the  Webster  jiart}'  would  be  re- 
garded as  libelers  of  Professor  Simson.  AVhen,  in  1717,  the 
case  had  to  be  disposed  of  in  some  way,  the  Assembly  neither 
deprived  Professor  Simson  of  his  position,  nor  did  the}"  even 
censure  him.  They  could  not,  without  stultifying  themselves, 
approve  of  his  strange  teaching ;  hence,  they  simply  say  that 
he  has  been  teaching  some  things  not  necessary  to  be  taught  in 
divinity,  and  that  in  the  future  he  must  abstain  from  given  ex- 
pression to  these  notions. 


^(5  HISTORY    UF    THE 

When  we  compare  the  decision  of  the  same  Assembly  with 
regard  to  the  Auchterarder  proposition,  and  that  of  Professor 
Simson,  we  have  too  plain  evidence  that  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land was  hetorodox  in  doctrine,  -if  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith  is  orthodox.  The  Auchterarder  proposition  and  the 
Confession  of  Faith  agree ;  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  those  taught  by  Professor  Simson  disagree.  Yet  the 
former  is,  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
<.'ensured ;  while  the  Assembly  tacitly  approves  the  latter.  In 
censuring  the  Auchterarder  Presbytery,  it  virtuall}^  condemned' 
the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  while, 
by  not  censuring  Professor  Simson,  and  by  not  thrusting  him 
■out  of  office,  it  encouraged  him  to  take  a  more  decided  stand 
against  the  trntli. 

It  will  be  manifest  to  the  reader  that  in  doctrine  the  Church 
of  Scotland  was  divided.  Those  who  had  accepted  the  AVest- 
niinster  Confession  of  Faith  as  a  matter  of  policy,  soon  ceased 
to  be  prudent  and  politic,  and  began  to  teach  doctrines  which 
have  ever  been  regarded  b^'  orthodox  J^resb3'terians  as  un- 
scri[)tural. 


ASSOCIATE    PKESBYTERV.  27 


CHAPTER  II. 

'•Marrow"'  Controversy — The  Author  of  "  The  Marrow  of  Modern  Divin- 
ity'"— Introduced  into  Scotland — l^opublished  by  Rev.  .lames  Hog — 
Tixcited  great  Oiiposition — Sev-erely  Criticised  by  Principal  Haddow — 
Defended  by  Thomas  Boston — Commission  of  the  General  Assembly — 
''  The  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity'"  Referred  to  the  Commission — Action 
of  the  Commission — Summon  before  them  Hog,  Hamilton,  Brisbane  and 
Warden — Report  of  the  Commission—"  The  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity" 
Condemned  bj-  the  Assembly — The  Eftect  upon  the  People — Attempt  to 
again  Bring  the  Matter  before  the  Assembly — "Marrow"  INIen  called 
"  Rcpresenters"" — Summoned  before  the  Commission — Twelve  Questions 
— Answers — Character  of  the  Answers. 

About  the  same  time,  or  shortly  ufter  the  difficulty  about 
the  Auchterarder  proposition  and  the  trial  of  Professor  Sim- 
son  occurred,  another  controversy  sprung  up  in  the  Chnrch  of 
Scotland.  This  was  called  the  "Marrow  difficulty."  It  was 
about  a  book  called  "The  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinit}'." 

As  the  controvers}'  about  this  book  was  sharp,  and  had  very 
much  to  do  in  bringing  about  the  secession  which  formed  the 
Associate  Presbytery,  it  will  be  necessar}'  to  examine  it  carefully. 

The  book  called  the  "  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity"  consists 
of  two  parts.  The  first  part  was  published  in  England,  in 
1644  ;  the  second  iu  1648.  The  first  part  treats  of  the 
covenant  of  works  and  the  covenant  of  grace.  The  second 
part  is  an  exposition  of  the  Ten  Commandments.  Its 
author  was  Edward  Fisher,  of  whom  little  more  is  known 
than  his  name.  According  to  the  most  credible  tradition, 
he  at  one  time  followed  the  humble  occupation  of  a  bar- 
ber in  London  ;  but  afterwards,  in  accordance  with  that 
marvelous  Providence  which  raises  the  poor  from  the  dust, 
he  became  minister  to  one  of  the  Inde]3endeut  cougrega- 
tions.  The  book  is  little  else  than  a  compilation  from  the 
works  of  the  most  Evangelical  Protestaut  divines.  It  was 
recommended  by  Caryl,  Sprigge  and  many  other  distinguished 
non-conforming  divines,  and  was  so  popular  that  it  soon  went 
through  ten  successive  editions. 


28  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  Ijook  was  introduced  into  Scotland  in  rather  a  re- 
markahle  way.  One  of  the  members  of  the  Simprin  con- 
gregation, of  which  Thomas  Boston  was  pastor,  had  been  a 
soldier  during  the  civil  war.  One  day,  when  Mr.  Boston  was 
visiting  this  man  and  his  family,  he  discovered,  above  the  win- 
dow",  two  old  books.  He  reached  up  and  took  the  books  down, 
and  found  that  the  title  of  one  of  the  books  was  "Christ's 
Blood  Flowing  Freel}'  for  Sinners."  The  other  book  w^as  the 
"Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity."'  These  books  the  parishioner  of 
Mr.  Boston  liad  brought  with  him  from  England  on  his  return 
from  the  war.  With  the  "Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity"  Mr. 
Boston  was  highly  pleased,  and  he  recommended  it  to  some  of 
his  ministerial  brethren.  So  well  pleased  was  Rev.  James 
Hog,  minister  of  Carnock,  with  the  book,  that  in  1718  he  re- 
published the  first  part  of  it,  prefixing  a  recommendatory  pre- 
face. With  regard  to  the  "Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity,"  it 
never  was  claimed  that  it  was  free  from  all  defects.  Xo  doubt 
there  are  some  things  said  in  it  that  are  not  in  strict  accord- 
ance witli  the  Scriptures.  The  same  may  be  said  of  every 
human  compend.  But  there  are  some  things  contained  in 
it  wliicli  are  true,  though  they  are  not  expressed  in  the  most 
ha[»py  way.  In  a  word,  it  is  not  an  inspired  work,  nor  was  in- 
spiration ever  claimed  for  it  by  its  most  enthusiastic  admirers. 
Its  author  was  only  a  man.  but  clearl}^  a  man  whose  mind  had 
been  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  book  was  re- 
garded at  the  time  of  its  publication  as  orthodox,  and  to  the 
present  day  all  those  Christian  denominations  who  have 
adopted  that  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  have  adopted  it  as  a  stan- 
dard theological  work.  It  has  been  repeatedly  published 
in  Europe  and  America,  and  is  to-day  in  the  library  of  nearly 
every  thoroughly  Calvinistic  divine  in  England,  in  Ireland, 
in  Scotland  and  in  America.  This  book,  the  general 
orthodoxy  of  which  has  never  been  doubted  by  the  most 
devoutly  pious 'people  on  earth,  created  the  most  intense  ex- 
citement in  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Had  the  work  been 
thoroughly  and  avowedly  infidel  in  all  its  teachings,  and  i»osi- 
tively  wicked  in  all  its  tendencies,  it  could  not  have  excited 
more  bitter   opposition.      It  was  assailed  from  the  pulpit  and 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  29 

the  press  by  those  ministers  who  opposed  the  Auchterarcler 
creed,  as  it  was  scoffingl}'  called,  and  by  the  avowed  or  secret 
friends  of  Professor  Simson's  strange  doctrines.  In  1719  a  com- 
plaint was  formally  made  against  the  "Marrow  of  Modern  Di- 
vinity." The  charge  was  made  that  the  book  contained  nnscrip- 
tural  and  dangerous  sentiments.  At  the  opening  of  the  Sj'nod 
of  Fife,  in  April,  1719,  Principal  Haddow^,  of  St.  Andrew's 
preached  a  sermon  in  which  he  severely  criticised  the  book. 
This  sermon,  in  order  to  give  it  more  publicity,  was,  ait  the  rc;- 
quest  of  the  latitudinarian  partv,  issued  from  the  press,  and 
put  into  general  circulation.  The  Boston  and  Hog  party  re- 
plied to  this  sermon,  and  soon  the  line  of  demarkation  between 
the  parties  became  distinct  and  well  defined. 

When  the  •'  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinit}'  "  came  up  before 
the  Assembl}',  it  was  not  disposed  of  in  a  presbyterial  way,  but 
was  referred  to  the  commission. 

That  the  reader  may  have  a  clear  conception  of  w^hat  was 
meant  by  the  commission  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  it  will  suffice  to  say  that  w^heu  each  As- 
sembly adjourned,  it  did  not  adjourn  sine  die,  but  converted 
itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole.  To  its  number  was 
added  any  persons,  who,  from  some  informality  in  the  papers 
had  been  rejected,  and  some  other  individuals  named  by  the 
Moderator. 

This  commission,  which,  in  realit}',  consisted  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly  and  the  additions  mentioned,  met  in  the 
Assembly  House  on  the  first  day  after  the  dissolution  of  the 
Assembl}'  i;)roper,  and  thereafter  at  the  expiration  of  every 
three  months,  until  the  next  regular  meeting  of  the  Assembly. 
They  had  the  right,  however,  to  meet  when  and  where,  and  as 
frecjuently  as  they  deemed  expedient.  They  were  a  kind  of 
high  commission,  possessing  full  power  to  decide  finall}'  in  the 
causes  which  came  before  them. 

The  "  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity  "  was  referred  to  this 
high  commission,  to  be  dealt  wdth  as  prejudice  and  ignorance 
might  suggest.  This  is  not  too  strong  language  ;  for  it  is  very 
certain  that  a  majorit}'  of  the  members  of  the  commission  had 


30  HISTORY    OF    THE 

never  seen  the  book,  and  it  is  equally  certain,  from  what  fol- 
lowed, that  they  had  already  decided  upon  the  nature  and 
character  of  its  contents. 

The  Assembly  charged  this  court  of  inquiry  to  be  very 
careful  "that  the  purity  of  doctrine  be  preserved/'  It  was 
further  enjoined  upon  the  commission  "  to  call  before  them  any 
authors  or  recommenders  of  books  or  pamphlets  containing 
any  doctrine  not  agreeable  to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

All  this  appears  very  well ;  but  the  sequel  will  show  that  it 
was  fair  only  in  appearance.  The  commission  appointed  a 
committee  to  take  the  matter  under  consideration  and  report 
to  the  next  General  Assembly.  "  This  committee  divided 
themselves  into  two  sections,  the  one  to  meet  at  St.  Andrew's, 
and  the  other  at  Edinburgh."  That  portion  of  the  conmiittee 
which  met  at  St.  Andrew's  made  a  number  of  extracts  from 
the  hated  and  prejudged  publication,  and  sent  them,  together 
with  various  remarks,  criticisms  and  condemnations,  to  the 
Edinburgh  section  of  the  committee.  The  Edinburgh  division 
of  the  committee  summoned  before  them  James  Hog,  Alexan- 
der Hamilton,  James  Brisbane  and  John  AVarden.  These  men 
were  distinguished  alike  for  their  piety,  zeal  and  orthodoxy. 
Like  vile  culprits  who  had  been  leagued  together  in  some  act 
of  outlawry,  these  good  men  were  dragged  before  this  wing  of 
the  committee,  and  each  examined  separately  and  alone. 

When  the  Assembly  of  1720  met,  the  committee  in-esented 
a  report  containing  a  number  of  garbled  extracts  froiM  the 
"Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity."  The  object  designed  by 
these  quotations  was  to  show  that  the  book  was  heterodox. 
The  contents,  or  rather  the  supposed  contents  of  the  book, 
were  discussed,  and  the  following  enactment  adopted : 

•'  All  the  ministers  of  the  church  are  strictly  prohibited  and  discharged, 
either  by  printing,  writing  or  preaching,  to  recommend  the  Marrow,  or  in 
discourse  to  say  anything  in  favor  of  it  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  en- 
joined and  required  to  warn  and  exhort  their  people,  in  whose  hands  the  said 
book  is,  or  may  come,  not  to  read  or  use  the  same." 

The  passage  of  this  act  had  an  effect  very  difierent  from 
what  was  intended.  The  book,  heretofore  little  known,  was 
now  eagerly  sought  after  and  read  by  the  masses  of  the  people. 
It  was  expected  that  the  book  would  be  found  full  of  startling 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  31 

errors  and  fatal  heresies.  Tlie  people  discovered,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  the  book  was  just  what  its  name  purported 
to  be — the  marrow  of  modern  divinity.  Thomas  Boston, 
and  other  good  and  godly  men,  styled  it  "  a  bundle  of  sweet 
and  pleasant  gospel  truths."  The  condemnatory  act  of  the 
Assembly  served  the  purpose  of  advertising  extensively  the 
book  which  it  was  designed  to  consign  to  oblivion. 

The  people  generally,  and  a  few  of  the  most  pious  ministers 
of  the  gospel  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  were  grieved  by  the 
course  which  the  General  Assembly  had  taken.  They  regard- 
ed the  highest  ecclesiastical  court  of  the  National  Church  as 
having  aimed  a  deadly  blow  at  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
free  grace.  Laboring  under  these  convictions,  it  was  thought 
advisable  to  have  the  subject  brought  again  before  the  Assem- 
bly, and,  if  possible,  secure  the  repeal  of  the  unjust  act.  A 
meeting  for  consultation  and  advice  was  appointed  at  the 
liouse  of  William  Wardlaw,  in  Edinburgh.  The  meeting  was 
attended  by  Revs.  James  Kidd,  Ebenezer  and  Ralph  Erskine, 
James  Wardlaw,  AYilliam  "Wilson,  James  Bathgate,  Gabriel 
Wilson,  Henry  Davidson  and  Thomas  Boston.  These  good 
men,  whose  names  will  go  down  to  the  latest  generation  of 
men,  before  taking  up  the  business  for  which  they  had  met, 
sought  the  guidance  and  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Thomas  Boston,  whose  piety  has  never  been  called  in  question, 
liad  drawn  up  a  paper  in  which  the  evils  complained  of  and 
the  relief  sought,  were  clearly  stated.  This  paper,  it  was  agreed, 
should  be  put  into  the  hands  of  Ebenezer  Erskine,  and  that  he 
should  draw  up  a  paper  to  be  presented  to  the  next  General 
Assembly.  After  several  meetings,  at  which  the  paper  pre- 
pared by  Ebener  Erskine  was  carefully  and  prayerfully  consid- 
ered, it  was  agreed  to  present  it  to  the  coming  Assembly.  This 
paper  was  signed  by  James  Hog,  Thomas  Boston,  John  Bonar, 
John  Williamson,  James  Kidd,  Gabriel  Wilson,  Ebenezer  Ers- 
kine, Ralph  Erskine,  James  Wardlaw,  Henry  Davidson,  James 
Bathgate  and  William  Hunter. 

In  1721,  the  paper  prepared  by  these  good  men  was  put  into 
the  hands  of  the  committee  on  bills.  The  Representers,  as  the 
3Iarrow  men  were  called,  expected  that  it  would  be  immedia- 
tely brought   before   the   Assembly  and   considered;  but  the 


dii  HISTORY  vv  THE 

Kiiig't^  commis-sioncr  taking  sick  suddeiily,  the  Assembly  was 
dissolved.  The  paper  prepared  by  tlie  3Iarrov-  men  was  coni- 
mittod  to  the  commission  with  instructioni^  tliat  every  thing 
shonld  be  prepared  for  the  next  Assembly.  The}',  however, 
were  not  granted  power  to  linally  decide  this  matter. 

The  commission  summoned  the  Representers  before  them 
frefpiently,  and  finally  informed  them  that  they  would  be  re- 
quired to  answer  twelve  questions.  The  questions  were  de- 
livered to  the  Representers  in  writing,  and  although  the  course 
taken  and  the  demand  made  Avas  unusual  and  unreasonable,  the 
Representers  thought  it  best  to  answer  them.  The  answers 
were  prepared  by  Ebenezer  Erskine  and  William  AVilson,  and 
given  to  the  commission. 

ANSWERS    FOU    THE    MINISTEUS    I  XDElt  -  SUliSCKIUINO,    TO    QUElilES    PUT    TO 
TIIEM    r.Y   THE   COMMISSION   OF    THE    LATE   OENEKAL  ASSEMBLY,    1721. 

Adhering  to,  and  holding  as  here  repeated,  our  subscribed  answer 
given  in  to  the  Reverend  Commission,  when  by  them  called  to  receive  these 
queries, — we  come  to  adventure,  under  the  conduct  of  the  faithful  and  true 
AVitness,  who  has  promised  the  Spirit  of  truth  to  lead  his  people  into  all 
truth,  to  make  answer  to  the  said  queries.  To  the  which  before  we  proceed, 
we  crave  leave  to  represent,  that  the  title,  thereto  prefixed,  viz.  "Queries 
to  be  put  to  Mr.  .James  Hog,  and  other  ministers,  who  gave  in  a  representa- 
tion in  favour  of  the  Marrow,  to  the  General  Assembly,  1721,"  as  well  as  that 
prefixed  to  the  Commission's  overture  anent  this  .aflair,  hath  a  native  tend- 
ency to  divert  and  bemist  the  reader,  to  expose  us,  and  to  turn  the  matter  off 
its  proper  hinge,  by  giving  a  wrong  colour  to  our  representation;  as  if  the 
chief  design  of  it  was  to  plead,  not  for  the  precious  truths  of  the  gospel, 
which  we  conceived  to  be  wounded  by  the  condenniatory  act,  but  for  "  The 
3Iarrow  of  ]\[odern  Divinity;"  the  which  though  we  value  for  a  good  and 
useful  book,  and  doubt  not  but  the  church  of  God  may  be  much  edified  by 
it,  as  we  ourselves  have  been;  yet  came  it  never  into  oitr  minds  to  hold  it  or 
any  other  private  writing  faultless,  nor  to  put  it  on  a  level  with  our  approved 
standards  of  doctrine. 

Query  I.  Whether  are  there  any  precepts  in  the  gospel,  that  were  not  arixt- 
ally  given  before  the  gospel  was  revealed  ? 

Answeh.  The  passages  in  our  representation,  marked  out  to  us  for  the 
grounds  of  this  query,  are  these:  "The  gospel-doctrine,  known  only  by  a 
new  revelation  after  the  fall.* — Of  the  same  dismal  tendency  we  apprehend 
to  be  the  declaring  of  that  distinction  of  the  law,  as  it  is  the  law  of  works, 
and  as  it  is  the  law  of  Christ,  as  the  author  applies  it,  to  be  altogether 
groundless. -j — The  erroneous  doctrine  of  justification,  for  something  wrought 
in  or  done  by  the  sinner,  as  his  righteousness,  or  keeping  the  new  and  gospel- 
law."  t  Now,  leaving  it  to  others  to  judge  if  these  passages  gave  any  just 
occasion  to  this  question, — we  answer, 

*  Par.  2.  t  Par- 5.  J  Par  penult. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  38 

Imo,  lu  the  gospel,  taken  strictly,  and  as  coutradistinct  from  the  law, 
for  a  doctrine  of  grace,  or  good  news  from  heaven,  of  help  in  God  through 
Jesus  Christ,  to  lost,  self-destroj'ing  creatures  of  Adam's  race,  or  the  glad- 
tidings  of  a  Saviour,  with  life  and  salvation  in  him  to  the  chief  of  sinviers, 
there  are  no  precepts  ;  all  these,  the  command  to  believe  and  repent  not  ex- 
cepted, belonging  to  and  flowing  from  the  law,  which  fastens  the  new  duty 
on  us,  the  same  moment  the  gospel  reveals  the  new  object. 

That  in  the  gospel,  taken  strictly,  there  are  no  precepts,  to  us  seems  evi- 
dent from  the  holy  scriptures.  In  the  first  revelation  of  it,  made  in  these 
words,  "The  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent," 
Gen.  iii.  15,  we  find  no  precept,  but  a  promise,  contahiing  glad  tidings  of  a 
Saviour,  with  grace,  mercy,  life,  and  salvation  in  him,  to  lost  sinnei's  of 
Adam's  family.  And  the  gospel  preached  unto  Abraham,  namely,  "  In 
thee  (i.  e.  in  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ)  shall  all  nations  be  blessed;"  Gal.  iii. 
>!,  compared  with  Gen.  xii.  3,  xxii.  IS;  Acts  iii.  25,  is  of  the  same  nature. 
The  good  tidings  of  great  joy  to  all  people,  of  a  Saviour  born  in  the  city  of 
David,  wlio  is  Christ  the  Lord,  brought  and  proclaimed  from  heaven  by  the 
angels,  Luke  ii.  10,  11,  we  take  to  have  been  the  gosi)el,  strictly  and  properly 
so  called,  yet  is  there  no  precei^t  in  these  tidings.  We  find  likewise,  the 
gosijel  of  peace,  and  glad  tidings  of  good  things,  are  in  scripture  convertible 
terms,  Rom.  x.  15.  And  the  word  of  the  gospel,  which  Peter  spoke  to  the 
Gentiles  that  they  might  believe,  was  no  other  than  peace  bj^  .lesus  Christ, 
crucified,  ri.sen  and  exalted  to  be  Judge  of  quick  and  dead,  with  remission  of 
sins  through  his  name,  to  be  received  by  every  one  believing  in  him,  Acts 
XV.  7,  XX.  36-43.  Much  more  might  be  added  on  this  head,  which,  that  we 
be  not  tedious,  we  pass.  See  Luke  iv.  18,  compared  with  Isa.  Ixi.  1,  3;  Acts 
XX.  24;  2  Tim.  i.  10.  Of  the  same  mind,  as  to  this  point,  we  find  the  body 
of  reformed  divines ;  as,  to  instance  in  a  few,  Calvin,  Chamier,  Pemble, 
Wendelin,  Alting,  the  professors  of  Leyden,  Witsius,  Mastrich,  Maresius, 
Troughton,  Essenius. 

That  all  precepts  (those  of  faith  and  repentance  not  excepted)  belong  to, 
and  are  of  the  law,  is  no  less  evident  to  us:  For  the  law  of  creation,  or  of 
the  Ten  Commandments,  which  was  given  to  Adam  in  paradise  in  the  form 
of  a  covenant  of  works,  requiring  us  to  believe  whatever  God  should  reveal 
or  promise,  and  to  obey  whatever  he  should  command;  all  px-ecepts  whatso- 
ever must  be  virtually  and  really  included  in  it :  So  that  there  never  was, 
nor  can  be,  an  instance  of  duty  owing  by  the  creature  to  God,  not  commanded 
in  the  moral  law,  if  not  directly  and  expressly,  yet  indirectlj^  and  by  conse- 
quence. The  same  first  command,  for  instance,  which  requires  us  to  take 
the  Lord  for  our  God,  to  acknowledge  his  essential  verity,  and  sovereign  au- 
thority; to  love,  fear,  and  trust  in  Jehovah,  after  what  manner  soe^'er  he  shall 
be  pleased  to  reveal  himself  to  us ;  and  likewise  to  grieve  and  mourn  for  his 
dishonour  or  disjileasure;  requires  believing  in  Jehovah  our  Righteousness, 
as  soon  as  ever  he  is  revealed  to  us  as  such,  and  sorrowing  after  a  godly  sort 
for  the  transgression  of  His  holy  law,  whether  by  one's  self  or  by  others.  It 
is  true,  Adam  was  not  actually  obliged  to  believe  in  a  Saviour,  till,  being 
lost  and  undone,  a  Saviour  was  revealed  to  him;  but  the  same  command  that 
bound  him  ti>  trust  and  dej  end  on,  and  to  believe  the  promises  of  God  Crea- 

3 


.34  HISTORY    OF    THE 

tor,  no  doubt  obliged  liiin  to  believe  in  God  Redeemer,  when  revealed.  Xor 
was  Adam  obliged  to  sorrow  for  sin  ere  it  was  committed:  But  this  same  law 
that  bound  him  to  have  a  sense  of  the  evil  of  sin  in  its  nature  and  effects,  to 
hate,  loathe,  and  flee  from  sin,  and  to  resolve  against  it,  and  for  all  holy  obe- 
dience, to  have  a  due  apprehension  of  the  goodness  of  God,  obliged  him  also 
to  mourn  for  it,  whenever  it  should  fall  out.  And  we  cannot  see  how  the 
contrary  doctrine  is  consistent  with  the  perfection  of  the  law;  for  if  the  law- 
be  a  complete  rule  of  all  moral,  internal  and  sjiiritual,  as  well  as  external 
and  ritual  obedience,  it  must  require  faith  and  repentance,  as  well  as  it  does 
all  other  good  works:  And  that  it  does  indeed  require  them,  we  can  have  no 
doubt,  when  we  consider,  that  without  them  all  other  religious  performances 
are  in  God's  account  as  good  as  nothing;  and  that  sin  being,  as  the  scrip- 
ture, 1  John  iii.  4,  and  our  own  standards  tell  us,  any  want  of  conformity 
to,  or  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  unbelief  and  impenitency  must  be  so 
too;  and  if  they  be  so,  then  must  faith  and  repentance  be  obedience  and  con- 
formity to  the  same  law,  which  the  former  are  a  transgression  of,  or  an  in- 
conformity  unto;  unbelief  particularly,  being  a  departing  from  the  living 
God,  Heb.  iii.  12,  is  for  certain  forbidden  in  the  first  command;  therefore 
faith  must  needs  be  required  in  the  same  command,  Isa.  xxvi.  4,  according 
to  a  known  rule.  But  what  need  we  more,  after  our  Lord  has  told  us,  that 
faith  is  one  of  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law;  Matth.  xxiii.  23.  And  that, 
it  is  not  a  second  table  duty,  which  is  there  meant,  is  evident  to  us,  by  com  - 
paring  the  parallel  place  in  Luke,  chap.  xi.  42,  where,  in  place  oi  faith,  we 
have  the  love  of  God.  As  for  repentance,  in  case  of  sin  against  God,  it  be- 
comes naturally  a  duty;  and  though  neither  the  covenant  of  works  or  of 
grace  admit  of  it,  as  any  expiation  of  sin  or  federal  condition  giving  right  to 
life,  it  is  a  duty  included  in  every  command,  on  the  supposal  of  a  transgres- 
sion. 

What  moves  us  to  be  the  more  concerned  for  this  point  of  doctrine,  is. 
That  if  the  law  does  not  bind  sinners  to  believe  and  repent,  then  we  see  not 
how  faith  and  repentance,  considered  as  works,  are  excluded  from  our  jus- 
tification before  God;  since  in  that  case  they  are  not  works  of  the  law,  un- 
der which  character  all  works  are  in  scripture  excluded  from  the  use  of  jus- 
tifying in  the  sight  of  God.  And  we  call  to  mind,  that  on  the  contrary  doc- 
trine Arminius  laid  the  foundation  of  his  rotten  principles,  touching  suffi- 
cient grace,  or  rather  natural  power.  "Adam,"  said  he,  "had  not  power  to 
believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  because  he  needed  him  not;  nor  was  he  bound  so  to 
believe,  because  the  law  required  it  not:  Therefore,  since  Adam  by  his  fall, 
did  not  lose  it,  God  is  bound  to  give  every  man  power  to  believe  in  Jesus 
Christ.'-'  And  Socinians,  Arminians,  Papists,  and  Baxterians,  by  holding 
the  gospel  to  be  a  new,  proper,  preceptive  law,  with  .sanction,  and  thereby 
turning  it  into  a  real,  though  milder  covenant  of  works,  have  confounded, 
the  law  and  the  gospel,  and  brought  works  into  the  matter  and  c.iuse  of  a 
sinner's  justification  before  God.  And,  we  reckon,  we  are  the  rather  called 
to  be  on  our  guard  here,  that  the  clause  in  our  representation,  making  men- 
tion of  the  new,  or  gospel  law,  is  marked  out  to  us  as  one  of  the  grounds  oX 
this  query,  which  we  own  to  be  somewhat  alarming.  Besides  all  this,  the 
teaching  that  faith  and  repentance  are  gospel-commands,  may  yet  again  open, 
the  door  to  Antinomianism,  as  it  sometimes  did  already,  if  we  may  believe 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  35 

Mr.  Cross,  who  says,  "  History  tells  us,  that  it  spruiif?  from  such  a  mistake, 
that  faith  and  repentance  were  taught  and  commanded  by  the  gospel  only, 
and  that  they  contained  all  necessary  to  salvation  :  so  the  law  was  need- 
Jess."  * 

On  this  head  also,  namely,  that  all  precepts  belong  to  the  law,  we  might 
likewise  adduce  a  cloud  of  witnesses  beyond  exception,  such  as  Pemble,  Es- 
senius,  Anthony  Burgess,  Rutherford,  Owen,  Witsius,  Dickson,  Fergusson, 
Troughton,  Larger  Catechism  on  the  duties  required  and  sins  forbidden  in 
the  first  commandment.     But,  without  insisting  further,  we  answer, 

3.  In  the  gospel,  taken  largely  for  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles,  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  or  for  a  system  of  all  the  promi- 
ses, precepts,  threatenings,  doctrines,  histories,  that  any  way  concern  man's 
i-ecovery  and  salvation;  in  which  respect,  not  only  all  the  ten  commandments 
but  the  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works,  belong  to  it,  (but  in  this  sense 
■the  gospel  is  not  contradistinct  from  the  law:)  In  the  gospel,  taken  thus  at 
large,  we  say,  there  are  doubtless  many  precepts  that  were  not  actually  given, 
(that  is,  particularly  and  expressly  promulgate  or  required,)  before  the  gos- 
pel was  revealed.  Love  to  our  enemies,  to  instance  in  a  few  of  many,  mercy 
.to  the  miserable,  bearing  of  the  cross,  hope  and  joy  in  tribulations,  in  pros- 
pect of  their  having  a  desired  issue,  love,  thankfulness,  prayer,  and  obedi- 
ence to  a  God-Redeemer,  zealous  witnessing  against  sin,  and  for  truth,  in 
case  of  defection  from  the  faith  or  holiness  of  the  gospel,  confessing  our 
faults  to,  and  forgiving  one  another:  all  the  ceremonial  precepts  under  the 
•Old  Testament,  together  with  the  institutions  of  Christ  under  the  New,  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ,  repentance  unto  life,  with  many  more,  to  say  nothing  of  per- 
sonal and  particular  precejits,  were  not  actually  given  before  the  gospel  was 
revealed;  all  which  are  nevertheless  reducible  to  the  law  of  the  ten  com- 
mands, many  of  them  being  plain  duties  of  the  law  of  nature,  though  they 
had  no  due  and  proper  objects,  nor  occasions  of  being  exercised  in  an  inno- 
cent state.  It  is  true,  there  are  many  of  them  we  had  never  heard  of.  with- 
out the  gospel  had  been  revealed;  yet  are  they  not  therefore,  in  any  proper 
sense,  precepts  of  the  gospel,  but  of  the  law,  which  is  exceeding  broad,  ex- 
tending to  new  objects,  occasions,  and  circumstances.  The  law  says  one 
thing  to  the  person  unmarried,  and  another  thing  to  the  same  person  when 
married;  one  thing  to  him  as  a  child,  another  thing  to  him  as  a  parent,  <kc., 
yet  is  it  the  same  law  still.  The  law  of  God,  being  perfect,  and  like  unto  its 
author,  must  reach  to  every  condition  of  the  creature;  but  if  for  every  new 
duty  or  new  object  of  faith,  there  behoved  to  be  a  new  law,  how  strangely 
must  laws  be  multiplied?  The  law  itself,  (even  in  the  case  of  a  man,)  may 
meet  with  many  changes,  and  yet  remain  the  saine  as  to  its  essence.  Now, 
as  to  faith  and  repentance,  though  ability  to  exercise  them,  and  acceptance 
of  them,  be  by  tlie  gospel;  yet  it  is  evident  that  they  must  be  regulated  by 
the  same  law,  the  transgression  of  which  made  them  necessary.  The  essence 
of  repentance,  it  is  plain,  lies  in  repeating  and  renewing,  with  a  suitable 
frame  of  spirit,  the  duties  omitted;  or  in  observing  the  law  one  had  formerly 
violated:  For  as  the  divine  perfections  are  the  rule  and  pattern  of  God's 
image  in  man,  as  well  in  his  regeneration,  as  in  his  creation;  so  the  holy  law 
of  God  is  the  rule  of  our  repentance,  as  well  as  of  our  primitive  obedience. 

*.Sermon  on  Rom.  iii.  27,  page  1G5. 


3()  HISTORY    OF    THE 

And  why  faith,  when  it  has  God-Mediator  or  God-Redeemer  for  its  object, 
may  not  be  from  the  same  law  as  when  it  had  God-Creator  or  God-Preserver 
for  its  object,  we  cannot  see. 

Query  II.  Ix  not  the  believer  now  bound,  by  the  authority  of  the  Creator, 
to  'personal  obedience  to  the  moral  law,  though  not  in  order  to  justification? 

Ans.  What  is  given  us  for  the  ground  of  this  query  is  the  following  clause 
of  our  Representation,  viz. :  "  Since  believers  are  not  under  it,  to  be  thereby 
justified  or  condemned,  we  cannot  comprehend  how  it  continues  any  longer 
a  covenant  of  works  to  them,  or  as  such  to  have  a  commanding  power  over 
them,  tliat  covenant  form  of  it  being  done  away,  in  Christ,  with  respect  to 
believers."  *  This  clause  of  the  Representation  being  so  much  one,  even  in 
words,  with  our  Confession,  chap.  19,  §  6,  we  could  never  have  expected  the 
Reverend  Commission  would  have  moved  a  query  upon  it ;  but  since  they 
have  been  pleased  to  think  otherwise,  we  answer  affirmatively — 

The  believer,  since  he  ceases  not  to  be  a  creature,  by  being  made  a  new 
creature,  is,  and  must  ever  be  bound  to  personal  obedience  to  the  law  of  the 
ten  commands,  by  the  authority  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  his  Creator: 
But  this  authority  is,  as  to  him,  issued  by  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
at  whose  mouth  he  receives  the  law,  being  as  well  his  Lord  God  Creator,  as 
his  Lord  God  Redeemer,  and  having  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelling 
in  him;  nor  can,  nor  will,  the  sinful  creature  ever  apply  himself  to  obedience, 
acceptable  to  God,  or  comfortable  to  himself,  without  the  Creator's  authority 
come  to  him  in  that  channel. 

We  are  clear  and  full  of  the  same  mind  with  our  Confession,  "  That  the 
moral  law  of  the  ten  commandments  doth  for  ever  bind  all,  as  well  justified 
persons  as  others,  to  the  obedience  thereof,  not  only  in  regard  of  the  matter 
contained  in  it,  but  also  in  respect  of  God  the  Creator,  who  gave  it;  and  that 
Christ  doth  not  in  the  gospel  any  way  dissolve,  but  much  strengthen  this  ob-  • 
ligation,"  chap.  19.  For,  how  can  it  lose  any  thing  of  its  original  authority, 
by  being  conveyed  to  the  believer  in  such  a  sweet  and  blessed  channel  as  the 
hand  of  Christ,  since  both  he  himself  is  the  supreme  God  and  Creator,  and 
since  the  authority,  majesty,  and  sovereignty  of  the  Father  is  in  his  Son,  he 
being  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory?  "Beware  of  him," 
says  the  Lord  unto  Israel,  concerning  Christ,  the  angel  of  the  covenant,  "and 
obey  his  voice  ;  provoke  him  not,  for  my  name  is  in  him,"  Exod.  xxiii.  24; 
that  is,  as  we  understand  it.  My  authority,  sovereignty,  and  other  adorable 
excellencies,  yea,  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  in  him,  and  in  him 
only  will  I  be  served  and  obeyed.  And  then  it  follows,  "But  if  thou  shalt 
indeed  obey  his  voice,  and  do  all  that  I  speak,"  ver.  22.  The  name  of  the 
Father  is  so  in  him,  he  is  so  of  the  same  nature  with  his  Father,  that  his 
voice  is  the  Father's  voice.  "If  thou  obey  his  voice,  and  do  all  that  I 
speak." 

We  desire  to  think  and  speak  honourably  of  him  whose  name  is  "Wonder- 
ful, Counsellor,  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  and  the  Prince  of 
Peace;"  and  it  cannot  but  exceedingly  grate  our  ears,  and  grieve  our  spirits, 
to  find  such  doctrines  or  positions  vented  in  this  church,  especially  at  a  time 
when  the  Arian  heresy  is  so  prevalent  in  our  neighbour  nations,  as  have  an 
obvious  tendency  to  darken  and  disparage  hi§  divine  authority,  as  that,   "  If 

*  Par.  4. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  87 

a  believer  ought  not  to  receive  the  law  of  the  ten  commandments  at  the 
hand  of  God,  as  he  is  Creator,  out  of  Christ,  then  he  is  not  under  its  obliga- 
tion, as  it  was  delivered  by  God  the  Creator,  but  is  loosed  from  all  obedience 
to  it,  as  it  was  enacted  by  authority  of  the  Loi'd  Creator;  and  that  it  is  inju- 
rious to  the  infinite  majesty  of  the  Sovereign  Lord  Creator,  and  to  the  honour 
of  his  holy  law,  to  restrict  the  believer  to  receive  the  ten  commands  only  at 
the  hand  of  Christ."  AVhat  can  be  more  injurious  to  the  infinite  majesty  of 
the  Sovereign  Lord  Redeemer,  by  whom  all  things  were  created  that  are  in 
heaven  or  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones  or  domin- 
ions, principalities  or  powers,  than  to  speak  as  if  the  Creator's  authority 
was  not  in  him;  or,  as  if  the  receiving  the  Creator's  law  from  Christ  did 
loose  men  from  obedience  to  it,  as  enacted  by  the  authority  of  the  Father. 
Wo  unto  us  if  this  doctrine  be  the  truth ;  for  so  should  we  be  brought  back 
to  consuming  fire  indeed:  For  out  of  Christ,  "he  that  made  us  will  have  no 
mercy  on  us;  nor  will  he  that  fortned  us  shew  us  any  favour."  We  humbly 
conceive,  the  Father  does  not  reckon  himself  glorified,  but  contemned, 
by  Christians  ofl:ering  obedience  to  him  as  Creator  out  of  Christ:  Nor  does 
the  offering  to  deal  with  him  after  this  sort,  or  to  teach  others  so,  discover  a 
due  regard  to  the  mystery  of  Christ  revealed  in  the  gospel;  for  it  is  the  will 
of  the  Father,  the  Sovereign  Lord  Creator,  that  all  men  should  honour  the 
Son,  even  as  they  honour  himself ;  and  that  at  or  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  every 
knee  should  bow;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  .Jesus  Christ  is 
Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father,  who  having  in  these  last  days  spoken 
unto  us  by  his  Son,  by  whom  also  he  made  the  world,  and  with  an  audible 
voice  from  heaven  hath  said,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son.  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased;  hear  ye  him."  Were  it  not  we  would  be  thought  tedious,  Perkins, 
Durham,  Owen,  and  others,  might  have  been  heard  on  this  head.  But  we 
proceed  to 

Q,UERY  III.  Doth  the  annexing  of  a  promise  of  life,  and  a  threatening  of 
death  to  a  precept,  make  it  a  covenant  of  works? 

We  answer,  as  in  our  representation.  That  the  promise  of  life  and  threat- 
ening of  death  superadded  to  the  law  of  the  Creator,  made  it  a  covenant  of 
works  to  our  first  parents,  proposed:  xVnd  their  own  consent,  which  sinless 
creatures  could  not  refuse,  made  it  a- covenant  of  works,  accepted.  "A  law," 
saith  the  judicious  Durham,  "doth  necessarily  imply  no  more  than,  1st,  To 
direct;  2dli/,  To  command;  enforcing  that  obedience  by  authority.  A  cove- 
nant doth  further  necessarily  imply  promises  made  upon  some  conditions  or 
threatenings  added,  if  such  a  condition  be  not  performed.  Now,  says  he, 
this  law  may  be  considered  without  the  consideration  of  a  covenant;  for  it 
was  free  to  God  to  have  added,  or  not  to  have  added  promises;  and  the  threat- 
enings. upon  supposition  the  law  had  been  kept,  might  never  have  taken 
effect."  Treatise  on  the  commands,  p.  4,  quarto  edit.  From  whence  it  is 
plain,  in  the  judgment  of  this  great  divine,  the  law  of  nature  was  turned 
into  a  covenant  by  the  addition  of  a  promise  of  life,  and  threatening  of  death. 
Of  the  same  mind  is  Burgess  and  the  London  Ministers,  'Vindicife  Legis,' 
page  61.  "  There  are  only  two  things  which  go  to  the  essence  of  a  law;  and 
that  is,  Imo,  Direction;  2do,  Obligation.  Imo,  Direction,  therefore  a  law  is 
a  rule;  hence  the  law  of  God  is  compared  to  light.  2do,  Obligation;  for 
therein  lieth  the  essence  of  sin,  that  it  breaketh  this  law,  which  supposes  the 


38  HISTORY    OF    THE 

oblioatory  force  of  it.  In  the  next  place,  there  are  two  consequents  of  the 
law,  which  are,  ad  bene  esse,  that  the  law  may  be  the  better  obeyed;  and  this 
indeed  turneth  the  law  into  a  covenant.  \st,  The  sanction  of  it  by  way  of 
promise,  that  is  a  mere  free  thing;  God,  by  reason  of  that  dominion  which 
he  had  over  man,  might  liave  commanded  his  obedience,  and  yet  never  made 
a  promise  of  eternal  life  unto  him.  And,  2dly,  As  for  the  other  consequent 
act  of  the  law,  to  curse  and  punish,  this  is  but  an  accidental  act,  not  ueces- 

sary  to  a  law;  for  it  comes  in  upon  supposition  of  transgression, A  law 

is  a  complete  law,  obliging  though  it  do  not  actually  curse;  as  in  the  con- 
firmed angels,  it  never  had  any  more  than  obligatory  and  mandatory  acts 
upon  them:  For  that  they  were  under  a  law,  is  plain,  because  otherwise 
they  could  not  have  sinned:  for  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgres- 
sion. 

Though  there  is  no  ground  from  our  representation  to  add  more  on  this 
head,  yet  we  may  say,  that  a  promise  of  life  made  to  a  precept  of  doing,  that 
is,  in  consideration  or  upon  condition  of  one's  doing,  (be  the  doing  more  or 
less,  it  is  all  one,  the  divine  will  in  the  precept  being  the  rule  in  this  case,) 
is  a  covenant  of  works.  And  as  to  believers  in  Christ,  though  in  the  gospel, 
largely  taken,  we  own  there  are  promises  of  life,  and  threatenings  of  death, 
as  well  as  precej^ts;  and  that  godliness  hath  the  promise,  not  only  of  this  life, 
but  of  that  which  is  to  come,  annexed  to  it,  in  the  order  of  the  covenant;  yet 
we  are  clear,  no  promise  of  life  is  made  to  the  performance  of  precepts,  nor 
eternal  death  threatened,  in  case  of  their  failing  whatsoever  in  performing; 
else  should  their  title  to  life  be  founded,  not  entirely  on  Christ,  and  his  right- 
eousness imputed  to  them,  but  on  something  in,  or  done  by  themselves:  And 
their  after  sins  should  again  actually  bring  them  under  vindictive  wrath,  and 
the  curse  of  the  law;  which,  upon  their  union  with  Christ,  who  was  made  a 
curse  for  them,  to  redeem  them  from  under  it,  they  are,  according  to  scripture, 
Rom.  vi.  14,  15;  Rom.  viii.  1;  Gal.  iii.  13,  4,  5;  and  our  Confession,  chap.  20, 
§  2.  Chap.  11,  §  5;  for  ever  delivered -from. Hence  we  know  of  no  sanc- 
tion the  law,  standing  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  hath  with  respect  to  believers, 
besides  gracious  rewards,  all  of  them  freely  promised  on  Christ's  account, 
for  their  encouragement  in  obedience;  and  fatherly  chastisement  and  dis- 
pleasure, in  case  of  their  not  walking  in  his  commandments;  Psal.  Ixxxix. 
31,  33;  1  Cor.  xi.  30,  32;  Luke  i.  20.  Which  to  a  believer  are  no  less  awful, 
and  much  more  powerful  restraint  from  sin,  than  the  prospect  of  the  curse 
and  hell  itself  would  be.  The  Reverend  Commission  will  not,  we  hope, 
grudge  to  hear  that  eminent  divine  Mr.  Perkins,  in  a  few  words,  on  this  head, 
who  having  put  the  objection,  "  In  the  gospel,  there  are  promises  of  life  upon 
condition  of  our  obedience,  as  Rom.  viii.  13,  '  If  ye  through  the  Spirit,'  «fcc. 
Ans.  '  The  promises  of  the  gospel  are  not  made  to  the  work,  but  to  the 
worker;  and  to  the  worker,  not  for  his  work,  but  for  Christ's  sake  according 
to  his  work;  e.  (j.  the  promise  of  life  is  not  made  to  the  work  of  mortifica- 
tion, but  to  him  that  mortifies  his  flesh;  and  that  not  for  his  mortification, 
but  because  he  is  in  Christ,  and  his  mortification  is  the  token  and  evidence 
thereof.""  This,  as  it  is  the  old  Protestant  doctrine,  so  we  take  it  to  be  the 
truth.     And  as  to  the  believer's  total  and  final  freedom  liom  the  curse  of  the 

*  On  Gal.  page  236,  in  Fol. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  39 

law,  upon  his  union  with  Christ,  Protestant  divines,  particularly  Rutherford 
and  Owen,  throughout  their  writings,  are  full  and  clear  on  the  head. 

Query  IV.  If  the  moral  lair,  antecedent  to  its  receiving  the  form  of  a  cove- 
nant of  works,  had  a  threatening  of  hell  annexed  to  it  1 

Ans.  Since  the  law  of  God  never  w^as,  nor  will  ever  in  this  world  be  the 
stated  rule,  either  of  man's  duty  towards  God,  or  of  God's  dealing  with  man, 
but  as  it  stands  in  one  of  the  two  covenants  of  works  and  of  grace,  we  are  at 
a  loss  to  discover  the  real  usefulness  of  this  query,  as  well  as  what  founda- 
tion it  hath  in  our  representation. 

As  to  the  intrinsical  demerit  of  sin,  we  are  clear,  whether  there  had  ever 
been  any  covenaut  of  works  or  not,  it  deserves  hell,  even  all  that  an  infinite- 
ly holy  and  just  God  ever  has,  or  shall  inflict  for  it:  Yet  what  behoved  to 
have  been  the  Creator's  disposal  of  the  creature,  in  the  supposed  event  of 
sin's  entering  without  a  covenant  being  made,  we  incline  not  here  to  dip  into; 
but,  we  reckon,  it  is  not  possible  to  prove  a  threatening  of  hell  to  be  insep- 
arable from  the  law  of  creation,  the  obligation  of  which,  because  resulting- 
from  the  nature  of  God  and  of  the  creature,  is  eternal  and  immutable:  for- 
confirmed  angels,  glorified  saints,  yea,  and  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  are 
all  of  them  naturally,  necessarily,  and  eternally  obliged  to  love,  obey,  depend 
on,  and  submit  unto  God,  and  to  make  him  their  blessedness  and  ultimate 
end ;  but  none,  we  conceive,  will  be  peremptory  in  saying,  they  have  a  threat- 
ening of  hell  annexed  to  the  law  they  are  under.  And  we  can  by  no  means 
allow,  that  a  believer,  delivered  by  Christ  from  the  curse  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  is  still  obnoxious,  upon  every  new  transgression,  to  the  threatening 
of  hell,  supposed  to  be  inseparably  annexed  to  the  law  of  creation,  or  of  the 
ten  commandments;  which  law  every  reasonable  creature  must  forever  be- 
under,  since  this  would  in  effect  be  no  other  than,  after  he  is  delivered  front 
hell  in  one  respect,  to  bind  him  over  to  it  in  another.  Whatever  threatening, 
one  may  suppose  belonged  to  the  moral  law  of  the  ten  commandments,  ante- 
cedently to  its  receiving  a  covenant  form,  all  was,  for  certain,  included  in  the 
sanction  of  the  covenant  of  works:  So  that  Christ,  in  bearing  the  curse  oS.' 
it,  redeemed  believers  from  the  hell,  vindictive  wrath  and  curse,  their  sins  in 
any  sort  deserved ;  the  hand  writing  that  was  against  them  he  cancelled,  tore 
to  pieces  and  nailed  to  the  cross.  Hence  the  thi-eateniug  of  hell  and  the 
curse  ai-e  actually  separated  from  the  law  of  the  ten  commandments,  which 
believers  are  under  as  a  rule  of  life  :  And  to  hold  otherwise,  is  the  leading 
error,  yea,  the  very  spring  and  fountain-head  of  Antinomianism,  on  all  which, 
Burgess,  Rutherford,  and  others,  may  be  heard. 

Query  V.  If  it  be  peculiar  to  believers,  to  be  free  of  the  commanding  power 
of  the  law,  as  a  covenant  of  works  ? 

Though  our  saying.  We  cannot  comprehend  how  the  covenant  of  works, 
as  such,  continues  to  have  a  commanding  power  over  believers,  that  cove- 
nant form  of  it  being  done  away  in  Christ  with  respect  to  them,-  gives  no 
sufficient  foundation  to  this  query,  since  we  affirm  nothing  concerning  any 
but  believers,  whose  freedom  from  the  commanding  power  of  that  covenant, 
the  query  seems,  as  much  as  we  do,  to  allow  of ;  we  answer  affirmatively; 
for,  since  it  is  only  to  believers  the  Spirit  of  God  in  scripture  says,   '  Ye  are 

*Par.  4. 


40  HISTORY    OF    THE 

not  under  the  law,'  (the  main  import  of  which  phrase  is,  subjection  to  the 
comniauclin.fj  power  of  it,  as  a  covenant,)  'but  under  grrace,'  Rom.  vi.  14; 
Gal.  iv.  5,  21  ;  and  since  tliey  only  are,  by  virtue  of  their  union  with  Christ, 
actually  freed  from  being  under  the  law,  by  Christ's  being  made  under  it, 
(«.  e.  under  its  command,  as  above,  as  well  as  under  its  curse;  for  them  ;  and 
since,  according  to  our  Confession,  chap.  19,  §  6,  it  is  the  peculiar  privilege 
of  believers,  which  therefore  unbelievers  have  no  interest  in,  not  to  be  under 
the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works,  to  be  justified  or  condemned  thereby;  we 
can  allow  no  other,  besides  believers,  to  be  invested  with  that  immunity. 

All  unbelie^ers  within,  as  well  as  without  the  pale  of  the  visible  church, 
since  they  seek  righteousness  only  by  the  works  of  the  law,  and  are  strang- 
ers to  the  covenant  of  grace,  we  always  took  to  be  debtors  to  the  whole  law, 
in  their  own  persons  :  and  this  their  obligation  under  the  d'l,  or  command- 
ing power  of  that  covenant,  we  took  to  be  inviolably  firm,  till  such  time  as 
by  faith  they  had  recourse  to  him,  who  "is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteous- 
ness to  every  one  that  believeth  ;"  else  we  thought,  and  do  still  think,  if  their 
obligation  to  the  command  of  that  covenant  ba  dissolved,  merely  by  their 
living  under  an  external  gospel  dispensation,  they  would  be  cast  quite  loose 
from  being  under  any  covenant  at  all  ;  contrary  to  the  common  received  doc- 
trine of  the  Protestant  churches,  namely.  That  every  person  whatsoever  is 
in  and  under  one  or  other  of  the  two  covenants  of  works  and  grace  :  Nor 
could  they,  unless  they  be  under  the  commanding  power  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  be  ever  found  transgressors  of  the  law  of  that  covenant,  by  any  ac- 
tual sin  of  their  own,  nor  be  bound  over  anew  under  the  covenant-curse 
thereby. 

The  covenant  of  works,  it  is  true,  is  by  the  fall  weak  and  ineft'ectual,  as  a 
covenant,  to  give  us  life,  by  reason  of  our  weakness,  and  disability  to  fulfill 
it,  being  antecedently  sinners,  and  obnoxious  t©  its  curse  ;  which  no  person 
can  be,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  have  a  right  unto  its  promise.  Hence,  for 
any  to  seek  life  and  salvation  by  it  now,  is  no  other  than  to  labour  after  an 
impossibility;  yet  does  it  nevertheless  continue  in  full  force  as  a  law,  requir- 
ing of  all  sinners,  while  they  continue  in  their  natural  state,  without  taking 
hold  by  faith  of  Christ  and  the  grace  of  the  new  covenant ;  recpiiring  of  them, 
we  say,  personal  and  absolutely  perfect  obedience,  and  threatening  death  upon 
every  the  least  transgression  :  From  the  commanding  power  of  which  law, 
retiuiring  universal  holiness  in  such  rigour,  as  that  on  the  least  failure  in  sub- 
istiince,  circumstance,  or  degree,  all  is  rejected,  and  we  are  determined  trans- 
gressors of  the  whole  law,  believers,  and  they  only,  are  freed,  as  we  said 
.-above.  "But  to  suppose  a  ijerson, "  says  Dr.  Owen,  "  bj' any  means  freed 
from  the  curse  due  unto  sin,  and  then  to  deny,  that  upon  the  performance  of 
the  perfect  sinless  obedience  which  the  law  requires,  he  should  have  right  to 
the  promise  of  life  theieby,  is  to  deny  the  truth  of  God,  and  to  reflect  dis- 
honour upon  his  justice.  Our  Lord  himself  was  justified  by  the  law  ;  and 
it  is  immutably  true.  That  he  who  does  the  things  of  it,  shall  live  in 
them."  (On  .Justification,  p.  345  )  "it  is  tiue,"  adds  the  same  author, 
"  that  God  did  never  formally  and  absolutely  renew,  or  give  again  this  law, 
as  a  covenant  of  works,  a  second  time  ;  nor  was  there  any  need  that  so  he 
should  do,  unless  it  were  declaratively  only :  A  ml  so  it  was  renewed  at  Sinai ; 
for  the  whole  of  it  being  an  emanation  of  eternal  right  and  truth,  it  abides, 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  41 

and  must  abide  in  fall  force  forever.  Wherefore  it  is  only  so  far  broke  as  a 
covenant,  that  all  mankind  having  sinned  against  the  command  of  it,  and  so 
by  guilt,  with  the  impotency  to  obedience,  which  ensued  thereupon,  defeated 
themselves  of  any  interest  in  its  promise,  and  possibility  of  attaining  any 
such  interest,  they  cannot  have  any  benefit  by  it.  But  as  to  its  power  to 
oblige  all  mankind  unto  obedience,  and  the  unchangeable  truths  of  its 
l^romises  and  threateniugs,  it  abides  the  same  as  it  was  from  the  begin- 
ning."— (Ibid.)  "The  introducing  of  another  covenant,"  adds  he  again  on 
the  same  head,  "inconsistent  with  and  contrary  to  it,  does  not  instantly  free 
men  from  the  law  as  a  covenant ;  for,  though  a  new  law  abrogates  a  former 
law  inconsistent  with  it,  and  frees  all  from  obedience,  it  is  not  so  in  a  cove- 
nant, which  operates  not  by  sovereign  authority,  but  becomes  a  covenant  by 
consent  of  them  with  whom  it  is  made.  So  there  is  no  freedom  from  the  old 
covenant,  by  the  constitution  of  the  new,  till  it  be  actually  complied  with  : 
In  Adam's  covenant  we  must  abide  under  obligation  to  duty  and  punishment, 
till  by  faith  we  be  interested  in  the  new." — (Ibid.  351.) 

From  all  which  it  appears  to  be  no  cogent  reasoning  to  say,  If  the  unbe- 
liever be  under  the  commanding  power  of  the  covenant  of  works,  then  would 
he  be  under  two  opposite  commands  at  once,  viz. :  to  seek  a  perfect  right- 
eousness in  his  own  person,  and  to  seek  it  also  by  faith  in  a  Surety :  For. 
though  the  law  requires  of  us  now  both  active  and  passive  righteousness  in 
our  own  i^ersons ;  and  likewise,  upon  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
gospel,  as  Jehovah  our  righteousness,  obliges  us  to  believe  in,  and  submit  to 
him  as  such  ;  yet  as  it  is  in  many  other  cases  of  duties,  the  law  requires  both 
these  of  us,  not  in  senso  composito,  as  they  say,  but  in  senso  diviso.  The  law 
is  content  to  sustain,  and  hold  for  good,  the  payment  of  a  responsible  surety, 
though  itself  provides  none  ;  and  wills  us,  being  insolvent  ourselves,  cheer- 
fully, thankfully,  and  without  delay,  to  accept  of  the  non-such  favour  offered 
unto  us  :  But  till  the  sinner,  coiUinced  of  his  vmdoneness  otherwise,  accept 
of,  use  and  plead  thati)enefit  in  his  own  behalf,  the  law  will,  and  does  go  on, 
in  its  just  demands,  and  diligence  against  him  :  Having  never  had  pleasure 
in  the  sinful  creature,  by  reason  of  our  unfaithfulness,  it  can  easily  admit  of 
the  marriage  to  another  husband,  upon  a  lawful  divorce,  after  fair  count  and 
reckoning,  and  full  satisfaction  and  reparation  made  for  all  the  invasions  upon, 
and  violation  of,  the  first  husband's  honour  ;  but  when  the  sinner,  unwilling 
to  hear  of  any  such  motion,  still  cleaves  to  the  law,  its  first  husband,  what 
wonder  the  law,  in  that  case,  go  on  to  use  the  sinner  as  he  deserves?  In 
short,  this  pretended  absurdity,  at  worst,  amounts  to  no  more  than  this  : 
Make  full  payment  yourself,  or  find  me  good  and  sufficient  paj  ment  by  a 
surety,  till  which  time  I  will  continue  to  proceed  against  you,  without  miti- 
gation or  mercy.  Wherefore  the  unbeliever  is  justly  condemned  by  the  law, 
both  because  he  did  not  continue  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law* 
to  do  them,  and  because  he  did  not  believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God. 

Qi:ery  VI.  If  a  sinner,  being  justified,  has  all  things  at  once  that  is  neces- 
aary  for  salvation?  And  if  personal  holiness,  and  progress  in  holy  obedience, 
is  not  necessary  to  a  justified  person'' s  possession  of  glory,  in  case  rf  7iis  con- 
tinuing in  life  after  his  justification  ? 

Ans.  1  he  ground  of  this  query,  marked  out  to  lis,  is  in  these  words  of 
holy  Luther:   "For  in  Christ  I  have  all  things  at  once  ;  neither  need  I  any 

4 


42  HISTORY     OF    THE 

tiling  more  that  is  necessary  vmto  salvation."  And  to  us  it  is  evident,  that 
this  is  the  believer's  plea,  viz.:  Christ's  most  perfect  obedience  to  the  law 
iov  him,  in  answer  unto  its  demand  of  good  Avorks  for  obtaining  salvation, 
according  to  the  tenor  of  the  first  covenant ;  which  plea  the  Representation 
alleges  to  be  cut  off,  and  condemned  by  the  act  of  Assembly.*  But  without 
saying  any  thing  of  the  old  Popish  reflection  on  the  doctrine  of  free  justifi- 
cation by  faith  without  works,  as  it  was  taught  by  Luther  and  other  reform- 
ers, or  the  hardshii)  of  having  this  question  put  to  us,  as  if  we  had  given 
ground  of  being  suspected  for  enemies  to  gospel  holiness,  which,  our  con- 
sciences bear  us  witness,  is  our  great  desire  to  have  advanced  in  ourselves 
and  others,  as  being  fully  persuaded,  that  without  it  neither  tliey  nor  we  shall 
see  the  Lord, — we  answer  to  the  first  part  of  the  query. 

That  since  a  justified  person,  being  passed  from  death  to  life,  translated 
from  the  power  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son,  and  blessed 
with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  Christ,  is,  by  virtue  of  his  union  with  him, 
brought  into,  and  secured  in  a  state  of  salvation  ;  and  therefore,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Holy  Ghost,  actually,  though  not  completely,  saved  already  ; 
and  since,  in  him,  he  has  particularly,  a  most  perfect,  law-biding,  and  law- 
magnifying  righteousness,  redemi:)tion  in  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  peace  with  God,  access,  acceptance,  wisdom,  sanctification,  everlasting 
strength,  and  in  one  word,  an  overflowing,  everflowing  fulness,  from  which,  ■ 
according  to  the  order  of  the  covenant,  he  does,  and  shall  receive  whatever 
he  wants  :  Hence,  according  to  the  scripture,  in  Christ  all  things  are  his, 
and  in  him  he  is  complete  :  Considering,  we  say,  these  things,  we  think  a 
justified  person  has  in  Christ,  at  once,  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  though 
of  himself  he  has  nothing. 

To  the  second  part  of  the  query,  we  answer,  that  personal  holiness  and 
justification  being  inseparable  in  the  believ;er,  we  are  unwilling,  so  much  as 
the  query  does,  to  suppose  their  separation.  Personal  holiness  we  reckon  so 
necessary  to  the  possession  of  glory,  or  to  a  state  of  perfect  holiness  and 
happiness,  as  is  the  morning  light  to  the  noon-day  warmth  and  brightness  ; 
as  is  a  reasonable  soul  to  a  wise,  healthy,  strong,  and  full-grown  man  ;  as  an 
antecedent  is  to  its  consequent ;  as  a  part  is  to  the  whole,  (for  the  diftereuco 
betwixt  a  state  of  grace  and  of  glory  we  take  to  be  gradual  only,  according 
to  the  usual  saying,  'Grace  is  glory  begun,  and  glory,  grace  in  perfection.') 
So  necessary,  again,  as  motion  is  to  evidence  life,  or,  in  order  to  walking ; 
not  only  habitual,  but  actual  holiness,  and  progress  in  holy  obedience,  one 
continuing  in  life,  we  are  clear  are  so  necessary,  that  without  the  same  none 
can  see  the  Lord.  And  as  it  is  not  only  the  believer's  interest,  but  his  neces- 
sary and  indispensable  duty,  to  be  still  going  on  "from  sti-ength  to  strength, 
until  he  appear  before  the  Lord  in  Zion  ;  so  the  righteous,  we  bel  eve,  will 
hold  on  his  way,  and  he  who  is  of  clean  hands  will  grow  stronger  and  strong- 
er :  "  For  though  the  believer's  progress  in  holy  obedience,  by  reason  of  the 
many  stops,  interiaiptions,  and  assaults,  he  frequently  meets  with  from  i^atan, 
the  world,  and  indwelling  corruption,  is  far  from  being  alike  at  all  times; 
'•yet  the  path  of  the  just,  though  he  frequently  fall,  will  be  as  the  shining 
light,  that  shineth  more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day  :"  Though  he  may 
at  times  become  "  weary  and  faint  in  his  mind  ;  yet  shall  he,  by  waiting  on 

*Par.  t;,  11. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  48 

the  Lord,  renew  his  strength,  and  mount  up  as  with  eagle's  wings,"  Jcc.  But 
still  the  believer  has  all  this  in  and  from  Christ :  For.  whence  can  our  pro- 
gress in  holiness  come,  but  from  the  supply  of  his  Spirit?  Our  walking  in 
holy  obedience,  and  every  good  motion  of  ours,  must  be  in  him,  and  from 
him,  who  is  the  way  and  the  life,  who  is  our  head  of  influences,  and  the 
fountain  of  our  strength,  and  who  "works  in  us  both  to  will  anu  to  do." — 
"Abide  in  me,"  says  he,  "and  I  in  you  :  For  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing. 
If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered." 

But  if  the  meaning  of  the  query  be,  of  such  a  necessity  of  holy  obedience, 
in  order  to  the  possession  of  glory,  as  imjjorts  any  kind  of  casuality.  we  dare 
not  answer  in  the  affirmative ;  for  we  cannot  look  on  personal  holiness,  or 
good  works,  as  properly  federal  and  conditional  means  of  obtaining  the  pos- 
session of  heaven,  though  we  own  they  are  ueces.sary  to  make  us  meet  for  it. 

QuEiiY  YII.  lapreacliinrj  the  necessity  of  a  lioly  life,  in  order  to  the  obtaining 
of  eternal  happiness,  of  dangerotis  consequence  to  the  doctrine  of  free  grace? 

Ans.  The  last  of  the  two  clauses  of  the  eighth  act  of  Assembly,  being 
complained  of  in  the  Representation,  is  the  first  and  main  ground  of  this 
query.  "■  And  ere  we  make  answer  to  it,  we  crave  leave  to  explain  ourselves 
more  fully,  as  to  the  offence  we  conceive  to  be  given  by  that  act ;  namely, 
That  in  opposition  to,  and  in  place  of  the  believer's  i^lea  of  Christ's  active 
righteousness,  in  answer  to  the  law,  demanding  good  works,  for  obtaining; 
salvation  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  fir.st  covenant,  cut  off,  as  we  appre- 
hend, by  the  fifth  act ;  ministers  are  ordered,  in  the  eighth  act,  to  preach  the 
necessity  of  our  own  personal  holhiess,  in  order  to  the  obtaining  of  everlast- 
ing happiness.  As  also,  that  our  inherent  holiness  seems  to  be  put  too  much 
upon  the  same  foot,  in  point  of  necessity  for  obtaining  everlasting  happiness, 
with  justification  by  the  Surety;  which  the  frame  of  the  words,  being  as  fol- 
lows, will  well  admit,  viz. :  "  Of  free  justification  through  our  blessed  Sure- 
ty the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  received  by  faith  alone  ;  and  of  the  necessity  of  an 
holy  life,  in  order  to  the  obtaining  of  everlasting  happiness."  Moreover, 
that  tlie  great  fundamental  of  justification  is  laid  down  in  such  general  terms, 
as  adversaries  will  easily  agree  to,  without  mention  of  the  Surety's  right- 
eousness, active  or  passive,  or  the  imputation  of  either  ;  especially  since  a 
motion  in  open  assembly,  for  adding  the  few  but  momentous  words,  '  impu- 
ted righteousness,'  was  slighted.  And  finally.  That  that  act  is  so  little  adapt- 
ed to  the  end  it  is  now  given  out  to  have  been  designed  for,  viz. :  a  testimony 
of  the  supreme  Godhead  of  our  glorious  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and 
against  Arianism  ;  especially  since  not  the  least  intimation  or  warning  against 
that  damnable  heresy  is  to  be  found  in  the  act  itself,  nor  was  made  to  that 
Assembly  in  passing  of  it. 

To  the  query,  we  answer,  That  we  cordially  and  sincerely  own  a  holy  life, 
or  good  works,  necessary,  as  an  acknowledsment  of  God's  sovereignty,  and 
in  obedience  to  his  command  ;  for  this  is  the  will  of  God,  even  our  sanctifica- 
tion;  and,  by  a  special  ordination,  he  has  appointed  believers  to  walk  in  them: 
Necessary,  for  glorifying  God  before  the  world,  and  shewing  the  virtues  of 
him  wlio  hath  called  us  out  of  darkness  into  this  marvellous  light :  Xeces- 
sary,  as  being  the  end  of  our  election,  our  redemption,  eftectual  calling,  and, 

*  Par.  IG,  15. 


44  HISTORY  or  the 

regeneration  ;  for,  "the  Father  chose  us  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world,  that  we  sliould  be  holy.  The  Son  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he 
might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  to  himself  a  peculiar  people, 
zealous  of  good  works  ;"  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit  we  are  created  in  Christ 
Jesus  unto  them  :  Necessary,  as  expressions  of  our  gratitude  to  our  great 
benefactor ;  for,  being  bought  with  a  price,  we  are  no  more  our  own,  but 
henceforth  in  a  most  peculiar  manner  bound,  in  our  bodies,  and  in  our  spir- 
its, which  are  his,  to  glorify,  and  by  all  possible  ways  to  testify  our  thanks- 
giving to  our  Lord  Redeemer  and  Ransomer  ;  "  to  Iiim  who  spared  not  his 
own  Son,  but  gave  him  up  to  the  death  for  us  all  ;  to  him  who  humbled  him- 
self, and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross  for  us:" 
Necessarj^,  as  being  the  design,  not  only  of  the  word,  but  of  all  ordinances 
and  providences  ;  even  that  as  "  he  who  has  called  is  holy,  so  we  should  be 
holy  in  all  manner  of  conversation:"  Necessary  again,  for  evidencing  and 
confirming  our  faith,  good  works  being  the  breath,  the  native  offspring  and 
issue  of  it  :  Necessary,  for  making  our  calling  and  election  sure  ;  for  they 
are,  though  no  plea,  a  good  evidence  for  heaven,  or  an  argument  confirming 
our  assurance  and  hope  of  salvation:  Necessary,  to  the  maintaining  of  in- 
ward peace  and  comfort,  though  not  as  the  ground  or  foundation,  yet  as 
effects,  fruits,  and  concomitants  of  faith  :  Necessary,  in  order  to  our  enter- 
taining communion  with  God,  even  in  this  life  ;  for.  "  if  we  say  we  have  fel- 
lowship with  him,  and  walk  in  darkness,  we  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth  :" 
Necessary,  to  the  escaping  of  judgments,  and  to  the  enjoying  of  many  prom- 
ised blessings  ;  particularly,  there  is  a  necessity  of  order  and  method,  that 
one  be  holy  ere  he  can  be  admitted  to  see  find  enjoy  God  in  heaven ;  that  be- 
ing a  disposing  mean  prcijaring  for  the  salvation  of  it,  and  the  king's  high- 
way chalked  out  for  the  redeemed  to  walk  into  the  city:  Necessary,  to  adorn 
the  gospel,  and  grace  our  holy  calling  and  profession  :  Necessary,  further, 
for  the  edification,  good,  and  comfort  of  fellow-believers :  Necessary,  to 
prevent  offence,  and  to  stop  the  mouths  of  the  wicked  ;  to  win  likewise  the 
unbelieving,  and  to  commend  Christ  and  his  ways  to  their  consciences  : 
Necessary,  fuinlly,  for  the  establishment,  glory,  and  the  security  of  churches 
and  nations.  Though  we  firmly  believe  holiness  necessary  upon  all  these, 
and  more  accounts,  and  that  the  Christian  ought  to  live  in  the  continued  ex- 
ercise of  gospel-repentance,  which  is  one  main  constituent  of  gospel-holiness; 
yet  we  dare  not  say,  a  holy  life  is  necessary  in  order  to  the  obtaining  of  eter- 
nal happiness.  For,  to  say  nothing  of  the  more  gross  sense  of  these  words, 
(manifestly  injurious  to  the  free  grace  of  our  Lord  .Jesus  Christ,  by  faith  in 
whose  righteousness  alone  we  are  a^jpointed  to  obtain  salvation,  from  first  to 
last,)  which  yet  is  obvious  enough,  though  we  are  far  from  imputing  it  to  the 
Assembly ;  we  cannot,  however  they  may  be  explained  into  an  orthodox 
meaning,  look  upon  them  as  wholesome  words,  since  they  have  at  least  an 
appearance  of  evil,  being  such  a  way  of  expression  as  Protestant  churches 
and  divines,  knowing  the  strong  natural  bias  in  all  men  towards  seeking  sal- 
vation, not  by  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  by  works  of  righteousness 
done  by  themselves,  and  the  danger  of  symbolizing  with  Papists,  and  other 
enemies  of  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  have  industriously  shunned  to  use  on  that 
head  ;  they  chusing  rather  to  call  holiness  and  good  works  necessary  duties 
of  the  persons  justified  and  saved,  tlian  conditions  of  salvation,  consequents 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  45 

and  effects  of  salvation  already  obtained,  or  antecedents,  disposing  and  pre- 
paring the  subject  for  the  salvation  to  be  obtained,  than  any  sort  of  causes, 
or  proper  means  of  obtaining  the  possession  of  salvation  ;  which  last  honour 
the  scripture,  for  the  high  praise  and  glory  of  sovereign  grace,  seems  to  have 
reserved  peculiarly  unto  faith:  And  rather  to  say  that  holiness  is  necessary 
to  them  that  shall  be  saved,  than  necessary  to  salvation  :  That  we  are  saved 
not  by  good  works,  but  rather  to  them,  as  fruits  and  effects  of  saving  grace  ; 
or  that  holiness  is  necessary  until  salvation,  not  so  much  as  a  mean  to  the 
end,  as  a  part  of  the  end  itself ;  which  part  of  our  salvation  is  necessary  to 
make  us  meet  for  the  other  that  is  yet  behind. 

Wherefore,  since  this  way  of  speaking  of  holiness  with  respect  to  salva- 
tion, is,  we  conceive,  without  warrant  in  the  holy  scripture,  dissonant  from 
the  doctrinal  standards  of  our  own  and  other  reformed  churches,  as  well  as 
from  the  chosen  and  deliberate  speech  of  reformed  divines  treating  on  these 
heads  ;  and  since  it,  being  at  best  but  'propositio  male  sonans,  (a  proposition 
sounding  ill,)  may  easily  be  mistaken,  and  afterwards  improved,  as  a  shade 
or  veliicle,  for  conveying  corrupt  sentiments,  anent  the  influence  of  works 
upon  salvation  :  We  cannot  but  reckon  pi-eaching  the  necessity  of  holiness 
in  such  terms  to  be  of  some  dangerous  consequence  to  the  doctrine  of  fiee 
grace.  In  which  apprehension  we  are  the  more  confirmed,  that  at  this  day  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  and  his  free  grace,  both  as  to  the  purity  and  efficacy  of 
the  same,  seems  to  be  much  on  the  wane,  and  Popery,  with  other  dangerous 
errors  and  heresies  destructive  of  it,  on  the  waxing  :  which  certainly  calls 
aloud  to  the  churches  of  Christ,  and  to  his  ministers  in  particular,  for  the 
more  zeal,  watchfulness,  and  caution,  with  reference  to  the  interests  of  truth  ; 
and  that  especially  at  such  a  time,  Cum  heretics  nee  nomina  Jiabeamus  com- 
munia,  ne  eorum  errori  f avert  videamur. 

If  in  any  case,  certainly  in  framing  acts  and  standards  of  doctrine,  there 
is  great  need  of  delicacy  in  the  choice  of  words  :  For  the  words  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  scripture,  under  which  we  include  such  as  in  meaning  and  import 
are  equivalent  to  them,  being  an  ordinance  of  divine  institution,  for  preserv- 
ing the  truth  of  the  gospel,  if  these  be  once  altered  or  varied,  all  the  wisdom 
and  vigilance  of  men  will  be  ineffectual  to  that  end.  And  it  is  well  known, 
by  costly  experience  to  the  churches  of  Christ,  that  their  falling  in  with  the 
language  or  phrase  of  corrupt  teachers,  instead  of  serving  the  interest  of 
truth,  which  never  looks  so  well  as  in  its  own  native  simplicity,  does  but 
grieve  the  stable  and  judicious,  stagger  the  weak,  betray  the  ignorant,  and. 
instead  of  gaining,  harden  and  open  the  mouths  of  adversaries.  And  that 
it  is  said  in  a  text,  "They  do  it  to  obtain  a  corruptible  crown,  but  we  an  incor- 
ruptible," will  not  warrant  the  manner  of  speech  in  the  query:  For  the  word 
in  the  original,  signifies  only  to  receive  or  apprehend,  being  accordingly  ren- 
dered in  all  Latin  versions  we  have  seen,and  in  our  own  translation,in  the  verse 
immediately  proceeding,  viz. :  "One  receiveth  the  prize ;' '  and  though  the  word 
did  signify  to  obtain,  in  the  most  strict  and  proper  sense,  it  could  not  make  for 
the  purpose,  unless  it  were  meant  of  the  believer's  obtaining  the  incurruptible 
crown,  not  by  faith,  but  by  works.  And  that  an  ill  chosen  word  in  a  stand- 
ard may  prove  more  dangerous  to  the  truth,  than  one  not  so  justly  rendered 
in  a  translation,  with  several  other  things  on  this  head,  might  be  made  very 
evident,  were  it  not  that  we  have  been,  we  fear,  tedious  on  it  already. 


4(j  HISTORY    OF    THE 

QuEiiY  Vlir.  Is  kiioioledrje,  belief  and  persuasion  that  Christ  died  for  me, 
a7id  that  he  is  mine,  and  that  whatever  Tie  did  and  sujfered,  he  did  and  suffered 
for  me,  the  direct  act  of  faith,  whereby  a  sinner  is  united  to  Christ,  interested 
in  him,  instated  in  God^s  covenant  of  grace?  Or,  is  that  knoicledge  of  persua- 
sion included  in  the  very  essence  of  that  justifyiiig  act  ff  faith? 

Ans.  The  query,  it  is  evidcDt,  exceedingly  narrows  the  iraijort  and  design 
of  tlie  Representation  in  the  place  referred  to:*  For  there  we  assert  nothing 
positively  concerning  the  passages  relating  to  faith,  but  remonstrate  against 
condemning  them,  as  what  to  us  seemed  to  hurt  the  appropriating  act  of 
faith,  and  to  fix  a  blot  upon  the  reformation,  reformed  churches  and  divines 
who  had  generally  taught  concerning  faith  as  in  the  condemned  passages  ; 
all  which  we  might  say,  without  determining  whether  the  persuasion  spoke 
of  in  the  query,  was  the  very  direct  and  formal  act  of  justifying  faith,  yea 
or  no.  But  now,  since  the  query  is  put  so  close,  and  since  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion is  no  other  than  the  old  Protestant  doctrine  on  that  head,  as  we  shall 
endeavor  to  make  appear,  the  Reverend  Commission,  we  humbly  conceive, 
cannot  take  it  amiss,  we,  in  the  first  place,  inquire  into  the  true  sense 
and  meaning  of  this  way  of  si)eaking  of  faith,  that  we  are  now  questioned 
about. 

The  main  of  the  condemned  passages  the  query  refers  to,  runs  not  in  the, 
order  therein  set  down,  but  as  follows  :  '"Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved;  that  is,  be  verily  persuaded  in  your  heart  that 
Christ  Jesus  is  jours,  and  that  you  shall  have  life  and  salvation  by  him;  that 
whatever  Christ  did  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  he  did  it  for  you;  being 
in  matter  the  same  with  what  has  been  commonly  taught  in  the  Protestant 
churches,  and  in  words  of  the  renowned  Mr.  John  Rogers  of  Dedham  (a  man 
so  noted  for  orthodoxy,  holiness,  and  the  Lord's  countenancing  of  his  minis- 
try, that  no  sound  Protestants  in  Britain  or  Ireland,  of  what  denomination 
soever,  would  in  the  age  wheiein  he  lived,  have  taken  upon  them  to  con- 
demn as  erroneous)  his  definition  of  faith,  which  we  have  as  follows :  "A 
particular  persuasion  of  my  heart,  that  Christ  Jesus  is  mine,  and  that  I  shall 
have  life  and  salvation  by  his  means  ;  that  whatsoever  Christ  did  for  the  re- 
demption of  mankind,  he  did  it  for  mc."f  "Where  one  may  see,  though  the 
diflcrence  in  words  be  almost  none  at  all,  yet  it  runs  rather  stronger  with 
him,  than  in  the  Marrow. 

In  which  account  of  saving  faith,  we  haye,  first.  The  general  nature  of  it, 
viz.  a  real  persuasion,  agreeing  to  all  sorts  of  faith  whatsoever;  for,  it  is 
certain,  whatever  one  believes  he  is  verily  persuaded  of.  IMore  particularly, 
it  is  a  persuasion  in  the  heart,  whereby  it  is  distinguished  from  a  general, 
dead  and  naked  assent  in  the  head,  which  one  gives  to  things  that  no  way 
attect  him,  because  he  reckons  they  do  not  coneeru  him.  "But  with  the  heart 
man  believes  here:  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,"  says  the  scripture, 
Acts  viii.  37;  Rom.  x.  10.  For  as  man's  believing  in  his  heart  the  dreadful 
tidings  of  the  law,  or  its  curse,  imports  not  only  an  assent  to  them  as  true, 
but  a  horror  of  them  as  evil;  so  here  the  being  persuaded  in  one's  heart  of 
the  glad  tidings  of  the  gospel,  bears  not  only  an  assent  unto  them  as  true, 
but  a  relish  of  them  as  good. 

Then  we  have  the  most  special  nature  of  it,  viz.  an  appropriating  persua- 
*  Par.  7.  t  doctrine  ol  faith,  page 'J."?. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  47 

sion,  or  a  persuasion  with  application  to  a  person's  self,  that  Christ  is  his. 
etc.  The  particulars  whereof  are,  first,  That  Christ  is  yours;  the  ground  of 
which  persuasion  is  the  ofter  and  grant  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour  in  the  word, 
to  be  believed  in  for  salvation,  by  all  to  whom  the  gospel  is  made  known  '■ 
By  which  offer,  and  setting  forth  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  though  before 
we  believe  we,  wanting  union  with  him,  have  no  actual  or  saving  interest 
in  him,  yet  he  is  in  some  sense  ours,*  namely,  so  as  it  is  lawful  and  war- 
rantable for  us,  not  for  fallen  angels,  to  take  possession  of  him,  and  of 
his  salvation  by  faith;  without  which,  our  common  interest  in  him  as  a 
Saviour,  by  virtue  of  the  offer  and  grant  in  the  word,  will  avail  ixs  noth- 
ing. But  though,  the  call  and  offer  of  the  gospel  being  really  particular, 
every  one,  both  in  point  of  duty  and  in  point  of  interest,  ou^ht  to  ap- 
propriate, apply,  or  make  his  own  the  thing  offered  by  believing,  they 
having  good  and  sufficient  ground  and  warrant  in  the  word  so  to  do;  yet 
it  is  either  neglected  and  despised,  or  the  truth  and  sincerity  of  it  sus- 
pected and  called  in  question,  until  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  setting  home  the 
word  of  the  gospel  with  such  a  measure  of  evidence  and  power  as  is  effectual,  . 
satisfies  the  convinced  sinner,  that,  with  application  to  himself  in  particular, 
"it  is  a  faithful  saying,  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  that  .Jesus  Christ  came  to 
save  sinners;"'  and  enables  him  to  believe  it.  Thus  the  persuasion  of  faith 
is  begot,  which  is  always  proportioned  to  the  measure  of  evidence  and  power 
from  above,  that  soveieigu  grace  is  pleased  to  put  forth  for  working  of  it. 

The  ne.rt  branch  of  the  persuasion  is.  That  you  shall  have  life  and  salva- 
tion by  him,  namely,  the  life  of  holiness,  as  well  as  of  happiness;  salvation 
from  sin  as  well  as  from  wrath,  not  in  heaven  only,  but  begun,  carried  on 
here,  and  comiileted  hereafter:  The  true  notion  of  life  and  salvation  accord- 
ing to  the  scriptures,  and  as  Protestant  divines  are  wont  to  explain  it. 
Wherefore  this  persuasion  of  faith  is  inconsistent  with  an  unwillingness  tc 
jiart  with  sin.  a  bent  or  purpose  of  heart  to  continue  in  it.  There  can  be 
little  question,  we  apprelienH,  whether  this  branch  of  the  persuasion  belongs 
to  the  nature  of  justifying  faith:  For  salvation  being  above  all  things  in  a 
sensible  sinner's  e\  e,  iie  can  never  bslieve  any  thing  to  his  satisfaction,  with- 
out he  sees  ground  to  believe  comfortably  concerning  it:  Few  therefore  will, 
we  conceive,  differ  from  Dr.  Collins,  laying  it  down  as  a  conclusion  on  this 
very  head,  namely,  That  "a  Christian  cannot  have  true,  saving,  justifying 
faith,  unless  he  doth  (T,  says  he,  do  not  say,  unless  he  think  he  doth,  or 
unless  he  saith  he  doth,  but  unless  he  doth)  believe,  and  is  persuaded  that 
God  will  pardon  his  sins."  (Cordial,  part  I.  p.  308.)  Further,  this  believing 
on  the  Son  for  life  and  salvation,  is  the  same  with  receiving  of  him  (as  this 
last  is  explained  by  the  Holy  Spirit  himself,  John  i  12,)  and  likewise  evi- 
dently bears  the  soul's  resting  on  Christ  for  salvation,  without  a  persuasion 
that  it  shall  have  life  and  salvation  by  him;  namely,  a  persuasion  of  the  same 
measure  and  degree  as  resting  is. 

*  To  any  per.fon  acquainted  with  tlie  works  of  tlie  Repre.senters,  Boston,  Erskines, 
&c.,  it  is  evident,  tliey  held,  that  a  belief  of  tlie  promises  of  4he  gospel  with  appUca- 
tion  to  one's  self,  or  a  confidence  in  a,  crucified  Saviour  for  a  man's  own  salvation,  is 
iheessenco  of  justifying  faith;  this,  with  them,  was  the  assurance  of  faith,  whicli 
widely  differs  from  ilie  Antinomian  sense  of  the  assurance  or  persuasion  of  faith. 
which  is,  that  Christ  and  pardon  of  sin  are  ours  in  possession  no  less  before  believing.— 
a  stn.se  which  the  Marrow-men  and  all  evangelical  writers  disclaim. 


48  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  third  branch  of  the  persuasion,  "That  whatsoever  Christ  did  for  the 
redemption  of  mankind,  he  did  it  for  you,"  being  much  the  same,  in  other 
words,  with  these  of  the  apostle,  "  Who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me;" 
and  coming  in  the  last  place,  we  think  none  will  question,  but  whosoever 
believes  in  the  manner  before  explained,  may  and  ought  to  believe  this  in 
the  like  measure,  and  in  the  same  order:  And,  it  is  certain,  all  who  receive 
and  rest  on  Christ  for  salvation,  believe  it,  if  not  exj)licitly,  yet  virtually  and 
really. 

Now,  as  this  account  of  justifying  faith  runs  in  terms  much  less  strong 
than  those  of  many  eminent  Protestant  divines,  who  used  to  define  it  by  a 
persuasion  of  God's  love;  of  his  special  mercy  to  one's  self;  of  the  remission 
of  his  sins,  &c. ;  so  it  is  the  same  for  substance  and  matter,  though  the  words 
be  not  the  same,  with  that  of  our  Shorter  Catechism,  viz.  "A  receiving  and 
resting  upon  Christ  alone  for  salvation,  as  he  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel:'' 
"Where  it  is,evident,  the  offer  of  Christ  to  us,  though  mentioned  in  the  last 
place,  is  to  be  believed  first:  For  till  the  soul  be  persuaded,  that  Christ  cru- 
cified is  in  the  gospel  .set  forth,  offered,  and  exhibited  to  it,  as  if  expressed 
by  name,  there  can  be  no  believing  on  him:  And  when  the  ofi:er  is  brought  ' 
home  to  a  person  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  there  will  be  a  measure  of  persuasion 
that  Christ  is  his,  as  above  explained:  And  that  receiving  or  believing  in 
and  resting  on  him  for  life  and  salvation  by  him,  was  said  already.  But 
more  directly  to  the  query, 

"We  answer,  \mo.  Since  our  reformers  and  their  successors  such  as  Lu- 
ther, Calvin,  Melancton,  Beza,  Bullinger,  Bucer,  Knox,  Craig,  JNIelvil,  Bruce, 
Davidson,  Forbes,  ^c,  men  eminently  endowed  with  the  Spirit  of  truth,  and 
who  fetch  their  actions  of  it  immediately  fi-om  the  fountain  of  the  holy  scrip- 
ture, the  most  eminent  doctors  and  professors  of  theology  that  have  been  in 
the  Protestant  churches,  such  as  Ursinias,  Zanchius,  Junius,  Piscator,  Pol- 
lock, Danjeus,  "Wendelinus,  Chamierus,  Sharpius,  Bodius,  Parens,  Altingius, 
Triglaudii  (Gisbertus  and  Jacobus),  Arnoldus,  Maresius,  the  four  professors 
of  Leyden,  viz.  "Wallajus,  Heidegerus,  Esseniu.s,  Turretinus,  ifcc. ;  with 
many  eminent  British  divines,  such  as  Perkins,  Pemble,  "Willet,  Gouge,  Rob- 
erts, Burgess,  Owen,  &c. ;  the  churches  themselves  of  Helvetia,  the  Palati- 
nate' France,  Holland,  England,  Ireland,  Scotland,  in  tlieir  standards  of 
doctrine;  all  the  Lutheran  churphes,  who  in  point  of  orthodoxy  and  faith  are 
second  to  none;  the  renowned  synod  of  Dort,  made  up  of  eminent  divine?, 
called  an  commissionate  from  seven  reformed  states  and  kingdoms,  besides 
these  of  the  several  provinces  of  the  Nethe^-lauds; — since  these,  we  say  all  of 
them,  stand  for  their  special  ^rfi/c«a,  confidence,  or  appropriating  persuasion 
of  faith  spoke  of  in  the  condemned  passages  of  the  Marrow,  upon  which  this 
query  is  raised;  the  synod  of  Dort,  besides  the  minds  of  the  several  dele- 
gates on  this  head,  in  their  several  sufl:rages  anent  the  five  articles,  declar- 
ing themselves  plainly,  both  in  their  final  decisions  concerning  the  said  arti- 
cles, and  in  their  solemn  and  ample  approbation  of  the  Palatine  Catechism, 
as  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God  in  all  things,  and  as  containing  nothing  that 
ought  to  be  either  altered  or  amended:  "Which  catechism  being  full  and  plain, 
as  to  this  persuasion  of  faith,  has  been  commented  upon  by  many  great  di- 
vines, leceived  by  most  of  all  the  reformed  churches,  as  a  most  excellent 
ccmpeud  of  the  orthodox  Chi-istian  doctrine;  and  particularly  by  the  church 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  49 

of  Scotland,  as  the  Rev.  Mr.  Robert  Wcclrow  lately  told  his  present  Majesty 
King  George,  in  the  dedication  of  his  history:  and  since  we,  with  this  whole 
church  and  nation  are,  by  virtue  of  the  awful  tie  of  the  oath  of  God  in  our 
National  Covenant,  bound  ever  to  abhor  and  detest  the  Popish  "general  and 
doubtsome  faith,  with  all  the  erroneous  decrees  of  Trent;"  among  which  (in 
opposition  to  the  special  fiducia,  therein  condemned)  this  is  established; 
being  by  Protestants,  so  called,  mainly  for  their  denying  and  opposing  the 
confidence  and  persuasion  of  faith,  with  application  to  one's  self,  now  in 
<luestion;  by  which  renunciation  our  forefathers,  no  doubt,  pointed  at,  and 
asserted  to  be  held  and  professed  as  God's  undoubted  truth  and  verity,  that 
particular  and  confident,  or  assured  faith,  then  commonly  known  and  main- 
tained in  this  church,  as  standing  plain  and  express  in  her  standards ;  to  the 
profession  and  defence  of  which,  they  in  the  same  covenant#pi-omising  and 
swearing  by  the  great  name  of  the  Lord  our  Gud,  bound  themselves  and  us  : 
And  since  the  same  persuasion  of  faith,  however  the  way  of  speaking  on  that 
head  is  come  to  be  somewhat  altered,  was  never  by  any  judicatory  of  a  re- 
formed church,  until  now,  denied  or  condemned:  Con;ilering  all  these 
things,  we  say,  and  of  what  dangerous  consequence  such  a  judicial  alteration 
may  be,  we  cannot,  we  dare  not  consent  unto  the  condemnation  of  that  point 
of  doctrine  :  For  we  cannot  think  of  charging  error  or  delusion  in  a  matter 
of  such  importance,  upon  so  many  Protestant  divines,  eminent  for  holiness 
and  learning  ;  upon  the  Protestant  churches  ;  and  upon  our  own  forefathers, 
.'^o  signally  owned  of  the  Lord;  and  also  on  the  standards  of  Protestant  doc- 
trine in  this  church,  for  nigh  an  hundred  years  after  her  reformation;  Else, 
if  Ave  should  thus  speak,  we  are  persuaded  we  would  offend  against  the  gen- 
eration of  h?s  children.  Nor  can  it  ever  enter  into  our  minds,  that  the  fa- 
mous Assembly  of  "Westminster  had  it  so  much  as  once  in  their  thoughts  to 
depart  in  this  point  from  the  doctrine  of  their  own,  and  of  this  church,  which 
they  were  all  of  them  by  the  strongest  ties  bound  to  maintain;  or  to  go  oft' 
from  the  synod  of  Dort,  which  had  but  so  lately  before  them  settled  the 
Protestant  principles  as  to  doctrine;  and  by  so  doing,  yield  up  to  Socinians, 
Arminians,  and  Papists,  what  all  of  them  have  a  mortal  aversion  to,  namely, 
the  special  fiducia,  or  appropriating  persuasion  of  faith,  which  Protestant 
divines  before  and  since  that  time  contended  for  to  their  utmost,  as  being 
not  only  a  precious  truth,  but  a  point  of  vast  consequence  to  religion.  And 
we  are  sure,  the  Assemblies  of  this  church  ftnderstood  and  received,  their 
Confessions  and  Catechisms,  Larger  and  Shorter,  as  entirely  consistent  with 
our  Confessions  and  Catechisms  before  that  time,  as  we  have  already  made 
evident  in  our  Representation,  from  the  acts  of  Assembly,  receiving  and  ap- 
proving the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms. 

Answer  2do,  It  is  to  be  considered,  that  most  of  the  words  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  made  use  of  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  for  expressing  the  nature 
of  faith  and  believing,  do  import  the  confidence  or  persuasion  in  question. 
And  that  confidence  and  trust  in  the  Old  Testament,  are  expounded  by  faith 
and  believing  in  the  New;  and  the  same  things  attributed  to  the  former; 
that  diflfidence  and  doubting  are  in  their  natuie,  acts  and  effects,  contrary 
to  faith:  that  peace  and  joy  are  the  native  effects  of  believing:  that  the 
promises  of  the  gospel,  and  Christ  in  his  priestly  ofiice  therein  held  forth, 
are  the  proper  objects  of  justifying  faith:  that  faithfulness  In  God,  and  faith 

5 


50  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ill  the  believer,  being  relatives,  and  the  former  the  ground  of  the  latter,  our 
faith  should  answer  to  his  faithfulness,  by  trusting  to  his  word  of  promise 
for  the  sake  of  it:  That  it  is  certain,  a  believer,  in  the  exercise  of  justifying 
faith,  does  believe  something  with  reference  to  his  own  salvation,  upon  the 
ground  of  God's  faithfulness  in  the  promise;  which  if  it  be  not  to  this  pur- 
pose, that  now  Christ  is  and  will  be  a  Saviour  to  him,  that  he  shall  have  life 
and  salvation  by  him,  we  are  utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what  it  can  be. 
That  persuasion,  conlidence,  and  assurance,  are  so  much  attributed  to  faith 
in  the  scripture,  and  the  saints  in  scripture  ordinarily  express  themselves  in 
their  addresses  to  God,  in  words  of  appropriation.  And  finally,  That  accord- 
ing to  our  Larger  Catechism,  faith  justifies  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God,  as 
an  instrument,  receiving  and  applying  Christ,  and  his  righteousness  held 
forth  in  the  jj^-omise  of  the  gospel,  and  resteth  thereupon  for  pardon  of  sin, 
and  for  the  accepting  and  accounting  one's  person  righteous  before  God  for 
salvation;  the  which  how  faith  can  do  without  some  measure  of  the  confi- 
dence or  appropriating  persuasion  we  are  now  upon,  seems  extremely  hard 
to  conceive.  Upon  these  considerations,  and  others  too  long  to  be  here  in- 
serted, we  cannot  but  think,  that  confidence,  or  trust  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  our 
Saviour,  and  the  free  grace  and  mercy  of  God  in  him  as  crucified,  offered  to 
us  in  tlie  gospel  for  salvation,  (including  justification,  sanctification  and 
future  glory,)  upon  the  ground  and  security  of  the  divine  faithfulness, 
plighted  in  the  gospel-promise;  and  upon  the  warrant  of  the  divine  call  and 
command  to  believe  in  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God:  Or,  which  is  the  same  in 
other  words,  a  persuasion  of  life  and  salvation,  from  the  free  love  and  mercy 
of  God,  in  and  through  Jesus  Christ;  a  crucified  Saviour  oft'ered  to  us  upon 
the  security  and  warrant  aforesaid,  is  the  very  direct,  uniting,  justifying  and 
appropriating  act  of  faith,  whereby  the  convinced  sinner  becomes  possessed 
of  Christ  and  his  saving  benefits,  instated  in  God's  covenant  and  family: 
Taking  this  always  along,  as  supposed,  that  all  is  set  home  and  wrought  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  brings  Christ,  his  righteousness,  salvation,  and  whole 
fulness,  nigh  to  us  in  the  promise  and  offer  of  the  gospel;  clearing  at  the 
sama  time  our  right  and  warrant  to  intermeddle  with  all,  without  fear  of 
vitious  intromission,  encouraging  and  enabling  to  a  measure  of  confident  ap- 
plication, and  taking  home  to  ourselves  freely,  without  money,  and  without 
price. 

This  confidence,  persuasion,  or  whatever  other  name  it  may  be  called  bj% 
we  take  to  be  the  very  same  with  what  our  Confession  and  Catechism  call 
accepting,  receiving,  and  resting  on  Christ  offered  in  the  gospel  for  salvation; 
and  with  what  polemic  and  practical  divines  call  fiducia  specialis  misericor- 
due,  fiducial  application,  fiducial  apprehension,  fiducial  adherence,  recum- 
bence, affiance,  fiducial  acquiescence,  ai^propriating  persuasion,  &c.  All 
which,  if  duly  explained,  would  issue  in  a  measure  of  this  confidence  or  per- 
suasion we  have  been  si^eaking  of.  However,  we  are  fully  satisfied,  this  is 
what  our  fathers,  and  the  body  of  Protestant  divines,  S2)eaking  with  the 
scriptures,  called  the  Assurance  of  Faith.  That  once  burning  and  shining- 
light  of  this  church,  Mr.  .John  Davidson,  though  in  his  Catechism  he  defines 
faith  by  a  hearty  assurance,  that  our  sins  are  freely  forgiven  us  in  Christ; 
or,  a  sui'e  persuasion  of  the  heart,  that  Christ  by  his  death  and  resurrection 
hath  taken  away  our  sins,  and,  clothing  us  with  his  own  perfect  righteous- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  51 

iiess,  has  thoroughly  restored  us  to  the  favour  of  God;  which  he  reckoned 
all  one  with  a  "hearty  receiving  of  Christ  oifered  in  the  gospel  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins:"  Yet  in  a  former  part  of  the  same  Catechism,  he  gives  us 
to  understand  what  sort  of  assurance  and  persuasion  it  was  he  meant,  as  fol- 
lows: "And  certain  it  is,"  says  he,  "  that  both  the  enlightening  of  the  mind 
to  acknowledge  the  truth  of  the  promise  of  salvation  to  us  in  Christ,  and  the 
sealing  up  of  the  certainty  thereof  iu  our  hearts  and  minds,  (of  the  whilk 
twa  parts,  as  it  were,  faith  consists,)  are  the  works  and  effects  of  the  Spirit 
of  God."  In  like  manner,  iu  our  Confession  of  Faith,*  it  is  called,  "An  as- 
sured faith  in  the  promise  of  God,  revealed  to  us  in  his  word;  by  which  faith 
we  apprehend  Jesus  Christ,  wuth  the  graces  and  benefits  promised  in  him. 

This  faith,  and  the  assurance  of  the  same,  proceeds  not  from  flesh  and 

blood."  And  in  our  first  Catechism,  commonly  called  Calvin's  Catechism, 
faith  is  defined  by  a  sure  persuasion  and  stedfast  knowledge  of  God's  tender 
love  towards  us,  according  as  he  has  plainly  uttered  in  the  gospel,  that  he 
Avill  be  a  Father  and  Saviour  to  us,  through  the  means  of  Jesus  Christ;  and 
again,  faith  which  God's  Spirit  worketh  in  our  hearts,  assuring  of  God's 
promises  made  to  us  in  his  holy  gospel.  In  the  Summula  Catechismi,  or 
Rudimenta  Pietalis,  to  the  Question,  Quid  est  fides?  the  Answer  is.  Cum 
mihi  persuadeo  Deum  me  omuesque  sanctos  amare,  nobisque  Christum  cum 
omnibus  suis  bonis  gratis  donare;  and  in  the  margin.  Nam  in  fide  duplex 
persuasio,  1.  De  amore  Dei  erga  nos.  2.  De  Dei  beneficiis  qua  ex  amore 
tiuunt,  Christo  nimirum,  cum  omnibus  sui  bonis,  ttc.  And  to  that  Ques- 
tion, Quomodo  fide  percipimus,  and  nobis  applicamis  corpus  Chrisii  crucifixi  f 
the  Answer  is,  Dum  nobi^  persuademus  Christi  mortem  and  crucifixionem 
uon  minus  ad  nos  pertinere  quam  si  ipsi  nos  pro  peccatis  nostris  crucifixi 
essemus.  Persuasio  autem  hfec  est  veras  fidei.  From  all  which  it  is  evident 
they  held,  that  a  belief  of  the  promises  of  the  gospel,  with  application  to 
one's  self,  or  a  confidence  in  a  crucified  Saviour  for  a  man's  own  salvation, 
is  the  very  essence  of  justifying  faith;  or,  that  we  become  actually  possessed 
of  Christ,  remission  of  sins,  &c.,  in  and  by  the  act  of  believing,  or  confidence 
in  him,  as  above  explained.  And  this  with  them  was  the  assurance  of  faith, 
which  widely  difters  from  the  Antinomian  sense  of  the  assurance  or  persua- 
sion of  faith,  which  is,  that  Christ,  and  pardon  of  sin,  are  ours,  no  less  be- 
fore believing  than  after;  a  sense  which  we  heartily  disclaim. 

Whether  these  words  in  the  query,  viz.  Or,  is  that  knowledge  a  persua- 
sion included  in  the  very  essence  of  that  justifying  act  of  faith?  be  exegeMc 
of  the  query;  We  answer.  That  we  liave  already  explained  the  persuasion  of 
faith  by  us  held,  and  do  think,  that  in  the  language  of  faith,  though  not  in 
the  language  of  philosophy,  knowledge  and  persuasion,  relating  to  the  same 
object,  go  hand  in  hand  in  the  same  measure  and  degree. 

It  is  evident,  that  the  confidence  or  persuasion  of  faith,  for  which  we 
plead,  includes,  or  necessarily  and  infallibly  infers,  consent  and  resting,  to- 
gether with  all  the  blessed  fruits  and  eflects  of  faith,  in  proportion  to  the 
measure  of  it.  And  that  we  have  mentioned  consent,  we  cannot  but  be  the 
more  confirmed  in  this  matter,  when  we  consider,  that  such  a  noted  person 
as  Mr.  Baxter,  though  he  had  made  the  marriage-consent  to  Christ,  as  King 
and  Lord,  the  formal  act  of  justifying  faith,  as  being  an  epitome  of  all  gos- 

*  Art.  3.  12. 


52  History  of  the 

pel-obedience,  includiiig  and  binding  to  all  the  duties  ot'  tlie  married  state, 
and  so  giving  right  to  all  the  privileges;  and  had  thereby,  as  well  as  by  his 
other  dangerous  notions  about  justification  and  other  points  connected  there- 
with, scattered  through  his  works,  corrupted  the  fountain,  and  endangered 
the  faith  of  many;  yet,  after  all,  came  to  be  of  another  mind,  and  had  the 
humility  to  tell  the  world  so  much:  For  Mr.  Cross  informs  us,*  that  INIr. 
Baxter,  in  his  little  book  against  Dr.  Crisp's  error,  says,  "I  formerly  be- 
lieved the  formal  nature  of  faith  to  lie  in  consent,  but  now  I  recant  it:  I  be- 
lieve (says  he)  it  lies  in  trust;  this  makes  the  right  to  lie  in  the  object:  for 
it  is,  I  depend  on  Christ  as  the  matter  or  merit  of  my  pardon,  my  life,  my 
ferown,  my  glory." 

Tliere  are  two  things  further,  concerning  this  persuasion  of  faith,  that 
should  be  adverted  to.     One  is,  that  it  is  not  axiomatical,  but  real,  i.  e.  tiie 
sinner  has  not  always,  at  his  first  closing  with  Christ,  nor  afterwards,  such 
a  clear,  steady,  and  full  persuasion  that  Christ  is  his,  that  his  sins  are  for- 
given, and  he  eventually  shall  be  saved;  as  that  he  dare  profess  the  same  to 
others,  or  even  positively  assert  it  within  himself:  Yet,  upon  the  first  saving 
manifestation  of  Christ  to  him,  such  a  persuasion  and  humble  confidence  is 
begotten,  as  is  real  and  relieving,  and  particular  as  to  himself  and  his  own 
salvation,  and  which  works  a  proportionable  hope  as  to  the  issue;  though, 
through  the  humbling  impressions  he  has  of  himself,  and  his  own  guilt  at 
the  time,  the  awe  of  God's  majesty,  justice,  and  holiness  on  his  spirit,  and 
his  indistinct  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  with  the  grounds  and 
warrants  of  believing  therein  contained,  he  fears  to  express  it  directly  and 
particularly  of  himself.     The  other  is,  that  whatever  is  said  of  the  habit, 
-actings,  strength,  weakness,  and  intermittings  of  the  exercise  of  saving  faith, 
the  same  is  to  be  said  of  this  persuasion  in  all  points.     From  all  which  it  is 
■  evident,  the  doubts,  fears,  and  darkness  so  frequently  to  be  found  in  true 
believei-s,  can  very  well  consist  with  this  persuasion  in  the  same  subject:  For 
though  they  may  be,  and  often  are,  in  the  true  believer,  yet  they  are  not  of 
his  faith,  which,  in  its  nature'  and  exercise,  is  as  opt  osite  to  them  as  light  is 
to  darkness,  the  flesh  to  the  spirit;  which,  though  they  be  in  the  same  sub- 
ject, yet  as  contrary  the  one  to  the  other.  Gal.  v.  17.     And  therefore  faith 
wrestles  against  them,  though  with  various  success,  it  being  sometimes  so 
far  overcome  and  brought  under  by  the  main  force  and  much  superior  strength 
of  prevailing  unbelief,  that  it  cannot  be  discerned  more  tlian  the  fire  is  when 
covered  with  ashes,  or  the  sun  when  wrapped  uj)  in  thick  clouds.     The  con- 
fidence and  persuasion  of  faith  being  in  many,  at  first  especially,  as  the  grain 
of  mustard  seed  cast  into  the  ground,  or  like  a  spark  amidst  the  trovibled  sea 
of  all  manner  of  corruption  and  lusts,  where  the  rolling  waves  of  unbelieving 
doubts  and  fears,  hellish  temptations  and  suggestions,  and  the  like,  moving 
on  the  face  of  that  deep,  are  every  now  and  then  going  over  it;  and  were 
there  not  a  divine  hand  and  care  engaged  for  its  preservation,  would  eff"ectu- 
ally  extinguish  and  bury  it:     What  wonder  that  in  such  a  case  it  many  times 
cannot  be  discerned?     Yet  will  it  still  hold,  so  much  of  the  exercise  of  justi- 
fying faith,  so  much  persuasion.     Yea,  not  only  may  a  believer  have  this 
persuasion,  and  not  know  of  it  lor  the  time  (as  say  Collins,  Roberts,  Ame- 

*  Ser.  on  Rom.  iv.  2,  p.  148. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  53 

sins,  and  others,  who  distin<;ui.>li  the  persuasion  from  tlie  sensi  of  it),  but 
he,  being  under  the  power  of  temptation  and  confusion  of  mind,  may  reso- 
lutely deny  he  has  any  such  persuasion  or  confidence;  while  it  is  evident  to 
others  at  tlie  same  time,  by  its  effects,  that  he  really  has  it:  For  which,  one 
may,  among  others,  see  the  hol7  and  learned  Mr.  Halyburton,  in  his  Inquiry 
into  the  nature  of  God's  act  of  justification.*  And  if  one  would  see  the  con- 
sistence of  faith's  persuasion  with  doubting,  well  discoursed  and  illustrated, 
he  may  cQnsult  Downhame's  Christian  warfare. f     But  we 

Ansicer  Sdly,  There  is  a  lull  persuasion  and  assurance,  by  refiectiou' 
spiritual  argumentatioii,  or  inward  sensation,  which  we  are  far  from  holding 
to-be  of  the  essence  of  faith;  but  this  last,  being  mediate,  and  collected  by 
inference,  as  we  gather  the  cause  from  such  signs  and  effects  as  give  evidence 
of  it,  is  very  different  from  that  confidence  or  persuasion,  iiy  divines  called 
the  "assurance  of  faith."  Sanctification,  says  Rutherford,  does  not  evidence 
justification,  as  faith  doth  evidence  it,  with  sue);  a  sort  of  cleainess,  as  light 
evidenceth  colours,  though  it  be  no  sign,  or  evident  mark  of  them;  but  as 
smoke  evidenceth  lire,  and  as  the  morning  st.ir  in  the  east  evidencetli  the 
sun  will  shortly  rise;  or  as  the  streams  prove  there  is  a  head-spring  whence 
they  issue;  though  none  of  these  make  what  they  evidence  visible  to  the  eye: 
So  doth  sanctification  give  evidence  of  justification,  only  as  marks,  signs, 
effects,  give  evidence  of  the  cause.  He  jails  it  a  light  of  arguing,  and  of 
heavenly  logic,  by  which  wc  know,  that  we  Isnow  God  by  tl  c  light  of  faith, 
because  we  keep  his  commandments.  In  effect,  says  i:e,  "  we  know  rather 
the  person  must  be  justified,  in  whom  these  gracious  evidences  are  by  hear- 
sa\,  report,  or  consequence,  than  that  we  know  or  see  justification  or  faith 
itself  ^;^  abstracto:  But  the  light  of  faith,  the  t  stimony  of  the  Spirit  by  the 
operation  of  free  grace,  will  cause  us,  as  it  were  with  onr  eyes,  see  justifica- 
tion and  faith,  not  by  report,  but  as  we  see  the  sun-light."  Again,  he  says, 
"We  never  bad  a  question  with  Antinomians,  touching  the  first  assurance 
of  justification,  such  as  is  proper  to  the  light  of  faith.  He  (Cornwall)  might 
have  spared  all  his  arguments,  to  i  rove  that  -we  are  first  assured  of  our  justi- 
fication by  fciith,  not  by  good  vi'orks;  for  we  grant  the  arguments  of  one  sort 
of  assurance,  which  is  proper  to  faith;  and  they  prove  nothing  against  an- 
other sort  of  assurance  by  signs  and  effects,  winch  is  also  divine."  Fur- 
ther, as  to  the  difference  between  these  two  kinds  of  assurance;  the  assur- 
ance of  faith  has  it's  object  and  foundation  without  the  man,  but  that  of  sense 
has  them  within  him:  I  he  assurance  of  faith  looks  to  Chri.st,  the  promise 
and  covenant  of  God,  and  says,  "This  is  all  my  salvation;  God  has  spoken 
in  his  holiness,  I  will  rejoice:"  But  the  assurance  of  sense  looks  inward  at 
the  works  of  God,  such  as  the  person's  own  graces,  attainments,  experiences, 
and  the  like:  The  assurance  of  faith  giving  an  evidence  to  things  not  seen, 
can  claim  an  interest  in,  and  plead  a  saving  relation  to  a  hiding,  withdraw- 
ing God:  Zion  said,  "My  Lord  hath  forgotten  me;"  and  the  spouse,  "I 
opened  to  my  beloved,  but  my  beloved  had  withdrawn  himself  and  was  gone." 
So  he  may  be  a  forgetting  and  a  withdrawing  God  to  ray  feeling,  and  yet  to 
my  faith,  my  God  and  my  Lord  still,  says  holy  Rutherford;  even  as  the  wife 
may  believe  the  augiy  and  forsaking  husband,  is  still  her  husband.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  assurance  of  sense  is  the  evidence  of  things  seen  and  felt 


*  Page  27.  t  P=i'''  IJ^-  lib.  ii.  p.  VH. 


54  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  one  says,  I  take  liim  for  mine;  the  uther  says,  I  feel  he  is  mine:  The  one 
says  with  the  church,  My  God  (though  he  cover  himself  with  a  cloud,  that 
my  prayer  cannot  pass  through,  yet)  will  hear  me;  the  other.  My  God  has 
heard  me:  The  one  says,  He  will  bring  me  forth  to  the  light,  and  I  shall  be- 
hold his  righteousness:  the  other,  He  has  bi*ought  me  forth  to  the  light,  and 
I  do  behold  his  righteousness:  'Ihe  one  says,  Though  he  should  kill  me,  yet 
will  I  trust  in  him;  the  other.  He  smiles  and  shines  on  me,  therefore  will  I 
love  him,  and  trust  in  him. 

Upon  the  whole,  we  humbly  conceive,  were  the  nature  and  grounds  of 
faith's  persuasion  more  narrowly  and  impartially  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  searclied  into,  and  laid  open,  it  would,  instead  of  discourag- 
ing weak  Christians,  exceedingly  tend  to  the  strengthening  and  increase  of 
faith,  and  consequently  have  a  mighty  influence  on  spiritual  comfort,  and 
true  gospel  holiness,  which  will  always  be  found  to  bear  proportion  to  faith, 
as  effects  do  to  the  efficacy  and  influence  of  their  causes. 

Query  IX.  What  is  tJiut  act  of  faith,  by  ichich  a  sim.er  uppn priates 
Christ,  and  his  saving  benefits,  to  himself? 

Ans.  This  ipiestion  being  fully  and  plainly  answered,  in  what  is  said  on 
the  immediately  foregoing,  we  refer  thereto,  and  proceed  to  the  tenth. 

Query  X.  Whether  the  revelation  of  the  divine  will  in  the  word,  affording 
a  warrant  to  offer  Christ  unto  all,  and  a  warrant  to  all  to  receive  him,  can  be 
said  to  he  the  Father'' s  making  a  deed  of  gift  and  grant  of  Christ  unto  all  man- 
kind? Js  this  grant  made  to  all  mankind  by  suvereign  grace  ?  And  whether  is 
it  absolute  or  conditional? 

Ans.  Here  we  are  directed  to  that  part  of  our  Representation,  where  we 
complain  that  the  following  passage  is  condemned,  viz.:  "The  father  hath 
made  a  deed  of  gift  or  grant  unto  all  mankind,  that  whosoiver  of  them  shall 
believe  in  his  Son,  shall  not  perish  ;"'  and  where  we  say,  "That  this  treat- 
ment of  the  said  passage,  seems  to  encroach  on  the  warrant  aforesaid,  and 
also  upon  sovereign  grace,  which  hath  made  this  grant,  not  to  devils,  but  to 
men,  in  terms  than  which  none  can  be  imagined  more  extensive  ;"  *  agree- 
able to  what  we, have  already  said  in  our  Representation  We  answer  to  the 
first  part  of  the  (luestion,  that  by  the  deed  of  gift  or  grant  unto  all  mankind, 
we  understand  no  more  than  the  revelation  of  the  divine  will  in  the  word, 
affording  warrant  to  offer  Christ  to  all,  and  a  warrant  to  all  to  receive  him  : 
For  although  we  believe  the  purchase  and  application  of  redemption  to  be 
peculiar  to  the  elect,  who  were  given  by  the  Father  to  Christ  in  the  counsel 
of  peace  ;  yet  tlie  warrant  to  receive  him  is  common  to  all :  ministers,  by 
virtue  of  the  commission  they  have  received  from  their  great  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter, are  authorized  and  instructed  to  go  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture, i  e.  to  make  a  full,  free,  and  unhampered  offer  of  him,  his  grace,  I'ight- 
eousness,  and  salvation,  to  every  lational  soul,  to  whom  they  may  in  provi- 
dence have  access  to  speak.  And  though  we  had  a  voice  like  a  trumpet,  that 
could  reach  all  the  corners  of  the  earth,  we  thiuk  we  would  be  bound,  by 
virtue  of  our  commiss-'on,  to  lift  it  up  and  say,  '  '-o  you,  O  men,  do  we  call, 
and  our  \oitte  is  to  tlie  sons  of  men.     God  hath  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 

*  Par.  .s. 


ASSOCIATE    TRESBYTERY.  00 

gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  tliat  wLosoever  believes  in  him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  everlasting  life,'  John  iii.  16.  And  although  this  deed  of  gift  and 
grant,  "That  whosoever  believeth  in  Christ  shall  not  perish,"  &c.,  is  neither 
in  our  Eepresentation,  nor  in  the  passages  of  the  book  condemned  on  that 
head,  called  a  deed  of  gift,  and  grant  of  Christ ;  yet  being  required  to  give 
our  judgment  on  this  point,  we  think,  that  agreeable  to  the  holy  scriptures 
it  may  be  so  called,  as  particularly  appears  from  the  text  last  cited,  John  iii. 
16,  where,  bj'  the  giving  of  Christ,  we  understand  not  only  his  eternal  des- 
tination by  the  Father,  to  be  the  Redeemer  of  an  elect  world,  and  his  giving 
him  unto  the  death  for  them,  in  the  fulness  of  time  ;  but  more  especially,  a 
giving  of  him  in  the  word,  unto  all,  to  be  received  and  believed  in  :  The 
giving  here,  cannot  be  a  giving  in  possession,  which  is  peculiar  only  unto 
them  who  actually  believe,  but  it  must  be  such  a  giving,  granting,  or  offer- 
ing, as  warrants  a  man  to  believe  or  receive  the  gift ;  and  must  therefore  be 
anterior  to  actual  believing.  '1  his  is  evident  enough  from  the  text  itself  : 
He  gave  him,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  ikc.  The 
context  also,  to  us,  puts  it  beyond  controversy;  the  brazen  serpent  was  given, 
and  lifted  up,  as  a  common  good  to  the  whole  camp  of  Israel,  that  whosoever 
in  all  the  camp,  being  stung  by  the  fiery  serpents,  looked  thereunto,  might 
not  die,  but  live  :  So  hei'e,  Christ  is  given  to  a  lost  world,  in  the  word,  that 
whosoever  believes  in  him  should  not  perish,  etc.  And  in  this  respect,  we 
think,  Christ  is  a  common  Saviour,  and  his  salvation  is  a  common  salvation : 
and  it  is  glad  tidings  of  great  joy  unto  all  peoj^le,  that  unto  us  (not  to  angels 
that  fell)  this  Son  is  given,  and  this  Child  is  born,  whose  name  is  called 
Wonderful,  &c.     Isa.  ix.  6. 

We  have  a  scripture  also  to  this  purpose,  John  vi.  32,  where  Christ, 
speaking  to  a  promiscuous  multitude,  makes  a  comparison  between  himself 
and  the  manna  that  fell  about  the  tents  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  and  says' 
"  My  Father  giveth  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven."  As  the  simple  rain- 
ing of  the  manna  about  their  camp,  is  called  a  giving  of  it,  ver.  31,  before  it 
was  tasted  or  fed  upon  :  so  the  very  revelation  and  ofter  of  Christ  is  called 
(according  to  the  judicious  Calvin  on  the  place)  a  giving  of  him,  ere  he  be 
received  and  believed  on. 

Cf  his  giving  of  Christ  to  mankind  lost,  we  read  also,  1  John  v.  11,  "And 
this  is  the  record,  that  God  hath  given  unto  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in 
his  Son."  This  giving  in  the  text,  is  not,  we  conceive,  a  giving  in  posses- 
sion, in  greater  or  lesser  measure  ;  but  a  giving  by  way  of  grant  and  offer, 
whereupon  one  may  warrantably  take  possession,  and  the  party  to  whom,  is 
not  the  election  only,  but  lost  mankind  :  For  the  record  of  God  here,  must 
be  such  a  thing  as  warrants  all  to  believe  on  the  Son  of  God.  But  it  can  be 
no  such  warrant,  to  tell.  That  God  hath  given  eternal  life  to  the  elect ;  for 
the  making  of  a  gift  to  a  certain  select  company  of  persons,  can  never  be  a 
warrant  for  all  men  to  receive  or  take  possession  of  it.  This  will  be  farther 
evident,  if  we  consider,  That  the  great  sin  of  unbelief  lies  in  not  believing 
this  record  of  God  ;  "he  that  believes  not,  hath  made  God  a  liar,"  says  the 
4ipostle,  ver.  10,  "because  he  believes  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of  his 
Son;"  and  then  it  foUoweth,  ver.  11,  "And  this  is  the  record,  that  God  hath 
given  to  us  eternal  life,"  etc.  Xow,  are  we  to  think,  that  the  rejecting  of 
the  record  of  God  is  a  bare  disbelieving  of  this  proposition,   "  That  God  hath 


50  HISTORY  OF  tup: 

given  eternal  life  vinto  the  elect?"  No  surely;  for  the  most  desperate  unbe- 
lievers, such  as  Judas,  and  others,  believe  this  ;  and  their  belief  of  it  adds  to 
their  anguish  and  torment  :  Or,  do  they,  by  believing  this,  set  to  their  seal 
that  God  is  true  ?  No,  they  still  continue,  notwithstanding  of  all  this,  to 
make  him  a  liar,  in  not  believing  this  record  of  God,  That  to  lost  mankind, 
and  to  themselves  in  particular,  God  hath  given  eternal  life,  by  way  of  grant, 
so  as  they,  as  well  as  others,  are  warranted  and  welcome  ;  and  every  one  to 
whom  it  comes,  on  their  peril,  required,  by  faith  to  receive,  or  take  possession 
of  it.  By  not  receiving  this  gifted  and  offered  remedy,  with  application  and 
appropriation,  they  lly  in  the  face  of  God's  record  and  testimony;  and  there- 
fore do  justly  and  deservedly  perish,  seeing  the  righteousness,  salvation,  and 
kingdom  of  God,  was  brought  so  near  to  them,  in  the  free  offer  of  the  gospel, 
and  yet  they  would  not  take  it.  The  great  pinch  and  strait,  we  think,  of  an 
awakened  conscience,  does  not  lie  in  believing,  that  God  hath  given  eternal 
life  to  the  elect ;  but  in  believing  or  receiving  Christ,  offered  to  us  in  the 
gosjjel,  with  particular  application  to  the  man  himself,  in  scripture  called, 
"An  eating  the  flesh,  and  drinking  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  man."  And  yet, 
till  this  difiBculty  be  surmounted,  in  greater  or  lesser  measure,  he  can  never 
be  said  to  believe  in  Christ,  or  receive  and  rest  upon  him  for  salvation  ;  the 
very  taking  or  receiving  must  needs  pre-suppose  a  giving  of  Christ ;  and  this 
giving  may  be,  and  is  for  the  most  part,  where  there  is  no  receiving  ;  but 
there  can  be  no  receiving  of  Christ  for  salvation,  where  there  is  not  revela- 
tion of  Christ  in  the  word  of  the  gospel,  aftbrding  warrant  to  receive  him, 
Rom.  X.  14,  and  then,  by  the  efi'ectual  operation  of  the  Spirit,  persuading 
and  enabling  the  sinner  to  embrace  him  upon  this  warrant  and  offer  :  "A 
man,"  says  the  Spirit  of  God,  John  iii.  27,  "can  receive  nothing,  except  it  be 
given  him  from  heaven."  Hence,  Mr.  Ruthtrford,  in  his  Christ  Dying  and 
Drawing,  &.C.,  page  443,  says,  "That  reprobates  have  as  fair  a  warrant  to 
believe  as  the  elect  have." 

As  to  the  second  part  of  this  question,  to  wit  :  "  Is  this  grant  made  to  all 
mankind  by  sovereign  grace?  And  whether  is  it  absolute  or  conditional?" 
We  answer,  That  this  grant  made  in  common  to  lost  mankind,  is  from  sov- 
ereign grace  only;  and  it  being  ministers'  warrant  to  offer  Christ  unto  all, 
and  jjeople's  warrant  to  receive  him,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  absolutely  free  ;  yet, 
so  as  none  can  be  possessed  of  Christ  and  his  benefits,  till  by  faith  they  re- 
ceive him. 

Qdery  XI.  Is  the  division  of  the  law,  as  explained  and  applied  in  the 
MarroiD,  to  he  justified,  and  lohich  cannot  he  rejected  loithout  hurying  several 
gospel-truths. 

Ajis.  We  humbly  judge,  the  tripartite  division  of  the  law,  if  rightly  un- 
derstood, may  be  admitted  as  orthodox  ;  yet,  seeing  that  which  we  are  con- 
cerned with,  as  contained  in  our  Representation,  is  only  the  division  of  the 
law  into  the  law  of  works  and  the  law  of  Christ :  we  say.  That  we  are  still 
of  opinion,  that  this  distinction  of  the  law  is  carefully  to  be  maintained  ;  in 
regard  that  by  the  law  of  works,  we,  according  to  the  scripture,  understand 
the  covenant  of  works,  which  believers  are  wholly  and  altogether  delivered 
1  from,  although  they  are  certainly  under  the  law  of  the  ten  commands  in  the 
hand  of  a  Mediator  :  And  if  this  distinction  of  the  law,  thus  applied,  be 
overthrown  and  declared  groundless,  several  sweet  gospel-truths  must  un- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  57 

avoidably  fall  in  the  ruins  of  it.  For  instance,  if  there  be  no  dift'erence  put 
between  the  law  as  a  covenant,  and  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life  to  believers  in 
the  hand  of  Christ  ;  it  must  needs  follow,  That  the  law  still  retains  its  cove- 
nant-form with  respect  .to  believers,  and  that  they  are  still  under  the  law  in 
this  formality,  contrary  to  scripture;  Rom.  vi.  14,  and  vii.  1,  2,  3;  and  to 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  19,  ^  6.  It  would  also  follow,  that  the  sins 
of  believers  are  still  to  be  looked  upon  as  breaches  of  the  covenant  of  works  ; 
and  consequently,  that  their  sins  not  only  deserve  the  wrath  and  curse  of 
God  (which  is  a  most  certain  truth,)  but  also  makes  them  actually  liable  to 
the  wrath  of  God,  and  the  pains  of  hell  for  ever  ;  which  is  true  only  of  them 
that  are  in  a  state  of  black  nature,  Lesser  Catechism,  Quest.  19  ;  and  con- 
trary to  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  19,  §  1.  It  will  likewise  follow.  That 
believers  are  still  to  eye  God  as  a  vindictive  and  wrathful  Judge,  though  his 
Justice  be  fully  satisfied  in  the  death  and  blood  of  their  IJlessed  Surety,  appre- 
hended by  faith.  These,  and  many  other  sweet  gospel-truths,  we  think  fall, 
in  the  ruins  of  the  foresaid  distiuction  condemned  as  groundless. 

Query  XII.  Is  (he  hope  of  heaven  and  fear  of  hell  to  he  excluded  from  the 
motives  (f  the  believer^ s  obedience?  And  if  not,  how  can  the  Marrow  he  de- 
fended, that  expressly  excludes  them,  though  it  should  allow  of  other  motives? 
Ans.  Here  we  are  referred  to  the  third  particular  head,  wherein  we  think 
the  Marrow  injured  by  the  Assembly's  act,  which  for  brevity's  sake  we  do 
not  transcribe  :  But,  agreeable  both  to  our  Representation  and  the  scope  of 
the  ]\!  arrow,  we  answer,  That,  taking  heaven  for  a  state  of  endless  felicity, 
in  fhe  enjoyment  of  God  in  Christ,  we  are  so  far  from  thinking,  that  this  is 
to  be  excluded  from  being  a  motive  of  the  believer's  obedience,  that  we  think 
it  the  chief  end  of  man,  next  to  the  glory  of  God,  Psal.  Ixxiii.  25,  "Whom 
have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?"  C:c.  Heaven,  instead  of  being  a  reward  to  the 
believer,  would  be  a  desolate  wilderness  to  him,  without  the  enjoyment  of  a 
God  in  Christ ;  the  Lord  (:;od  and  the  Lamb  are  the  light  of  that  place  :  God 
himself  is  the  portion  of  his  people  ;  he  is  their  shield,  and  exceeding  great 
reward.  'I  he  very  cop  -stone  of  the  happiness  of  heaven  lies  in  being  for 
ever  wi;h  the  Lord,  and  in  beholding  of  his  glory:  and  this  indeed  the  be- 
liever is  to  have  in  his  eye,  as  the  recompense  of  reward,  and  a  noble  motive 
of  obedience  :  Ihit,  to  form  conceptions  of  heaven,  as  a  place  of  pleasure 
and  happiness,  without  the  former  views  of  it,  and  to  fancy  that  this  heaven 
is  to  be  obtained  by  our  own  works  and  doings,  is  unworthy  of  a  believer,  a 
child  of  God,  in  regard  it  is  slavish,  legal,  mercenary,  and  carnal. 

As  for  the  fear  of  hell  its  being  a  motive  of  the  believer's  obedience,  we  reckon 
it  one  of  the  special  branches  of  that  glorious  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath 
made  his  people  free,  that  they  yield  obedience  to  the  Lord,  not  out  of  slavish 
fear  of  hell  and  wrath,  but  out  of  a  child-like  love  and  willing  mind  ;  Confess, 
chap.  20,  §  ().  '-Christ  hath  delivered  us  out  of  the  hands  of  our  enemies, 
that  we  might  serve  him  without  fear,  in  holiness  and  righteousness,  all  the 
days  of  our  lives,"  Luke  i.  74,  75.  A  filial  fear  of  God,  and  of  his  fatherly 
displeasure,  is  worthy  of  the  believer,  being  a  fruit  of  faith,  and  of  the  Spirit 
of  adoption  ;  but  a  slavish  fear  of  hell  and  wrath,  from  which  he  is  delivered 
by  Christ,  is  not  a  fruit  of  faith,  but  of  unbelief.  And  in  so  far  as  a  believer 
is  not  drawn  with  love,  but  driven  on  in  his  obedience  with  a  slavish  fear  of 
hell,  we  think  him  in  so  far  under  a  spirit  of  bondage.     And  judging  this  to- 


58  HISTORY    OF    THE 

be  the  JMarrow's  sense  of  rewards  and  punishments  with  respect  to  a  be- 
believer,  we  think  it  may  and  ought  to  be  defended. 

And  this  doctrine,  which  we  apprehend  to  be  the  truth,  stands  supported, 
not  only  by  scripture  and  our  Confession  of  Faith,  but  also  by  the  suffrages 
of  some  of  our  soundest  divines  :  For  instance,  Mr.  Rutherford  ;  *  "Be- 
lievers," says  he,  "are  to  be  sad  for  their  sins,  as  offensive  to  the  authority 
of  the  Lawgiver  and  the  love  of  Christ,  though  they  be  not  to  fear  the  eter- 
nal punishment  of  them  ;"  for  sorrow  for  sin,  and  fear  for  sin,  are  most  dif- 
ferent to  us.  Again,  says  the  same  author,!  "servile  obedience,  under  ap- 
prehension of  legal  terror,  was  never  commanded  in  the  spiritual  law  of  God 
to  the  Jews,  more  than  to  us."  Durham  {loco  citato,)  "The  believer,"  says 
he,  "being  free  from  the  law  as  a  covenant,  his  life  depends  not  on  the 
promises  annexed  to  the  law,  nor  is  he  in  danger  by  threatening  adjoined  to 
it,  both  these  to  believers  being  made  void  through  Christ."  And  to  con- 
clude, We  are  clear  of  Dr.  Owen's  mind,  anent  the  use  of  the  threatenings  of 
everlasting  wrath  with  reference  unto  believers,  who,  though  he  owns  them 
tD  be  declarative  of  God's  hatred  of  sin,  and  his  will  to  punish  it ;  yet,  in 
regard  the  execution  of  them  is  inconsistent  with  the  covenant,  and  God's 
faithfulness  therein,  says,  "The  use  of  them  cannot  be  to  beget  in  believers 
an  anxious,  doubting,  solicitous  fear  about  the  punishment  threatened, 
grounded  on  a  supposition  that  the  person  fearing  shall  be  overtaken  with 
it,  or  a  perplexing  fear  of  hell-fire  ;  which,  though  it  oft-times  be  a  conse- 
quence of  some  of  God's  cli.spensatious  towards  us,  of  our  own  sins,  or  the 
weakness  of  our  faith,  is  not  anywhere  prescribed  unto  us  as  a  duty;  nor  is 
the  ingenerating  of  it  in  us  the  design  of  any  of  the  threatenings  of  God." 
His  reasons,  together  with  the  nature  of  that  fear  which  the  threatenings  of 
eternal  wrath  ought  to  beget  in  believers,  may  be  viewed  among  the  rest  of 
the  authorities. 

These  are  some  thoughts  that  have  ottered  to  us  upon  the  queries,  which 
we  lay  before  the  Reverend  Commission,  with  all  becoming  deference,  hum- 
bly craving  that  charity,  which  thinketh  no  evil,  may  procare  a  favourable 
construing  of  our  words,  so  as  no  sense  may  be  put  upon,  nor  inference 
drawn  from  them,  which  we  never  intended.  And  in  regard  the  tenor 
of  our  doctrine,  and  our  aims  in  conversation,  have  (though  with  a  mixture 
of  much  sinful  weakness)  been  sincerely  pointed  at  the  honor  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  as  our  King,  as  well  as  Priest,  as  our  sanctitication  as  well  as  our  right- 
eousness,— We  cannot  but  regret  our  being  aspersed,  as  turning  the  grace  of 
ottr  Ood  into  lasciviousness,  and  casting  off  the  obligation  of  the  holy  law  of 
the  ten  commands;  being  persuaded  that  the  damnation  of  such  as  either  do 
or  teach  so,  is  just  and  unavoidable,  if  mercy  prevent  it  not.  But  now,  if, 
after  this  plain  and  ingenuous  declaration  of  our  principles,  we  must  still  lie 
under  the  same  load  of  reproach,  it  is  our  comfort  that  we  have  the  testi- 
mony of  our  consciences  clearing  us  in  that  matter,  and  doubt  not  that  the 
Lord  will  in  due  time  "bring  forth  our  righteousness  as  the  light,  and  oui' 
judgment  as  the  noonday."  We  only  add.  That  we  adhere  to  our  Repre- 
sentation and  Petition  in  all  points;  and  so  much  the  lather,  that  we  have 


*  Christ  dj-ing  and  drawing,  &c.,  page  513. 
t  Trial  and  triumph,  old  edit.,  page  107. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  59 

already  obsei'ved  the  sad  fruits  and  bad  iraprovemeut  made  of  the  Assem- 
bly's deed,  therein  complained  of. 

These  answers,  contained  in  this  and  the  sixteen  px'ecediug  pages,  (viz. 
of  the  manuscript  given  in,)  are  subscribed  at  Edinburgh,  March  12,  1722, 
by  us. 

The  names  of  the  Subscribers,  both  of  the  Papers  given  in  Nov.  9th,  1721, 
and  of  the  preceding  Answers. 
Mr.  James  Hog,  minister  of  the  Gospel  at  Ca"nock. 

Thomas  Boston,  do.  Etfeerick. 

John  Williamson,  do.  laveresk. 

James  Kid,  do.  Queensferry. 

Gabriel  Wilson,  do.  Maxton. 

Ebenezer  Erskine,  do.  Portmoak. 

Ralph  Erskine,     J  ^^  Dunferline. 

James  Wardlaw,  > 

Henry  Davidson,  do.  Galashiels. 

James  Bathgate,  do.  Orwell. 

William  Hunter,  do.  Liliesleaf. 

iV.  B.  Mr.  John  Bonar,  Minister  of  the  Gospel  at  Torphichen,  being  de- 
tained by  indisposition,  could  neither  attend  when  the  Queries  were  given, 
nor  the  Answers  returned. 

With  regard  to  these  answers,  it  may  be  remarked  that  they 
contain  a  vast  amount  of  sound  theology,  and  display  an  amount 
of  theological  learning  rarely  found  in  the  works  of  either  an- 
■cient  or  modern  divines.  Had  Ebenezer  Erskine  and  William 
Wilson  done  nothing  else,  their  answers  to  these  unreasonable 
<j^uestions,  propounded  by  the  commission,  would  have  perpetu- 
ated tlieir  names  as  long  as  the  English  language  is  spoken,  and 
pious  men  are  pleased  with  sound,  scriptural  theology. 

The  body  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  at  that 
time,  seem  to  have  been  ignorant  of  the  gospel  plan  of  salva- 
tion ;  at  least  of  that  plan  as  deduced  from  the  Scriptures  and 
briefly  but  plainly  stated  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.  The  anti-Marroiv  men,  and  they  were  in  the  majority, 
seem  to  have  been  unable  to  make  the  proper  distinction  be- 
tween the  law  as  being  a  rule  of  life  and  not  being  a  rule  of 
justification.  The  true  doctrine  of  both  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  of  the  3Iarrow  men  is,  that  the  sinner  is 
not  justified  on  account  of  obedience  to  the  law,  but  by  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ.  In  other  words,  the  ground  of  the  sinner's 
pardon  and  justification,  is  the  obedience  and  suftering  of  the 
Lamb  of  God.  The  death  of  Christ  secures  the  believer's  pardon, 
and  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  imputed  to  him  and  received  by 


60  HISTORY    OF    THE 

faith  alone — faith  without  works — in  that  on  account  of  which 
he  is  pronounced  just.  Such  being  the  case,  while  the  law  is 
a  rule  of  sanctification,  it  is  not,  and  never  was  designed — at 
least  since  the  fall  of  Adam — to  be  a  rule  of  justification. 

The  Assembly  of  1722  somewhat  modified  the  act,  condemn- 
ing, in  no  measured  terms,  the  "Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity  ;" 
but  still  its  most  objectionable  features  were  permitted  to  re- 
main in  force.  I^otonlyso;  but  the  Assembly  decided  that 
the  Representers  or  Marrow  men  should  l)e  publicly  rebuked 
at  their  bar. 

The  Representers  appeared  before  the  bar  of  the  Assembly, 
and  were,  by  the  Moderator,  rebuked.  Having  discovered  how 
the  matter  was  likely  to  terminate,  they  had  previously 
prepared  a  protest.  So  soon  as  the  Moderator  had  finish- 
ed his  rebuke,  this  protest  was  presented  by  James  Kidd,  in 
liis  own  name,  and  in  the  name  of  the  other  31arrow  men.  The 
Assembly  flew  into  a  rage,  and  would  neither  permit  the  pro- 
test to  be  read  nor  allow  it  to  lie  on  the  table. 

The  Assembly  was  quickly  dissolved,  as  if  the  object  was  to 
insult  the  Illarroio  men.  Here  the  matter  ended.  The  parties 
had  now  grown  warm  ;  nay,  they  had  become  bitterly  angry. 
The  anti-Mctrroirmcu,  constituting  themselves  incpiisitors,  set 
about  to  hunt  up  the  Marroir  men  and  drag  them  before  the 
church  courts,  as  if  the  object  of  the  latter  was  to  establish 
Popery.  The  controversy  spread  all  over  Scotland,  and  the 
book  was  eagerly  sought  for  by  both  ministers  and  people — the 
former  generally  to  condemn  ;  the  latter  to  approve.  Minis- 
ters who  had  never  seen  the  book,  })reached  against  it  and 
pronounced  anathemas  against  any  of  their  parishioners  who 
would  dare  to  read  it.  This  excited  the  curiosity  of  the  peo- 
ple, who  made  it,  on  all  occasions,  a  subject  of  conversation. 
The  multitude  of  the  people,  who,  when  the  controversy  firet 
began,  had  never  seen  or  heard  of  the  book,  were  as  much  puz- 
zled to  know  what  was  its  proper  name,  as  to  learn  what  were 
its  real  contents.  Some  argued  that  the  title  of  the  book  was 
the  "Marrow  of  Morality,"  whilst  others  declared  that  its 
proper  title  was  the  "Mother  of  Divinity." 

So  soon  as  the  mass  of  pious  people  became  acquainted  with 
its  contents,  from  a  personal  examination,  the  popular  current 
turned  in  favor  of  the   Marrow  ^yiQn.     The  anti- Marrow  mew ^ 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  61 

especially  the  young  men,  ceased  to  preach  Christ  and  Ilim 
Crucified,  and  turned  their  pulpit  exercises  into  rant  condemna- 
tory of  Edward  Fisher's  book.  The  result  was  that  the  con- 
gregations of  the  Marroio  men  increased,  whilst  those  of  the  op- 
posite party  dwindled  down. 


62  HISTORY    OP    THE 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  eftect  of  the  "Marrow"  Controversy  on  the  Church — Professor  Simsoii 
Denies  the  necessary  Existence  of  Jesus  Christ — Is  Tried  by  the  Presby- 
tery of  Glasgow — His  case  is  Brought  before  the  General  Assembly — 
Charges  all  Proved — The  Church  greatly  Corrupted — Blasphemous  Doc- 
trines— Professor  Simson's  Case  Ended,  1729 — Many  were  Grieved  on 
account  of  the  Leniency  Shown  him  by  the  Assembly— The  "Marrow" 
'Men  Protest — Effect  iSTothing — Patronage — Its  Origin  —  Presbyterian 
Mode  of  SettUng  Vacant  Congregations — Tlie  Mauner  previous  to  the  Se- 
cession— Patronage  Law  Revived  by  Charles  II. — Abolished  in  1688 — Re- 
stored iu  1711 — Clergy  in  favor  of  the  Patronage  Act — The  Assembly 
Appoints  " Riding  Committees"  to  Settle  Pastors— 1  he  "Riding  Com- 
mittees" Call  out  the  Military  to  Assist  Them— The  Overture  of  1731 
Designed  to  Crush  out  the  Rights  of  the  People — The  Overture  Rejected 
by  the  Presbyteries,  but  Adopted  by  the  General  Assembly — Character  of 
the  General  Assembly — The  Overture  the  proximate  Cause  of  the  Seces- 
sion— Robert  Stark  forcibly  Placed  over  the  Congregation  of  Kinross — 
Ebenezcr  Erskine's  Sermon — Adam  Ferguson  ]Moved  the  Appointing  of 
a  Committee  to  Consider  the  Sermon — Objection  Stated  by  the  Commit- 
tee— Sermon  Published— The  objectional  Passages  Scriptural — Mr.  Ers- 
kine  Defends  Himself — The  Kingship  of  Christ  Offensive  to  the  Majority 
— Mr.  Erskine's  Definition  of  a  Call — Adheres  to  his  Notes— Mr.  Erskire 
censured  by  the  Sjnod  of  Perth  and  Sterling — Twelve  Ministers  and  two- 
Elders  Protest — Mr.  Erskine  is  Ordered  to  be  Rebuked  in  April — He 
Refuses  to  be  Rebuked  and  Presents  a  Paper — General  Assembly  Met  in 
^lay,  17o3 — Mr.  Erskine's  Protest  Brought  before  the  Assembly — The 
Assembly  Order  Mr.  Erskine  to  be  Rebuked — He  Declared  he  could  not 
Submit — Protests  of  Wilson,  Moncrieff  and  Fisher — Assembly  Refused 
to  Hear  the  Protest  Read — Protest  fell  on  the  Floor — Is  read  by  Nae- 
smith — Excitement  in  the  Assembly — Protesters  Sent  for — Act  of  1732 — 
Protesters  Brought  before  the  Assembly — Ordered  before  the  Commis- 
sion in  August — The  Protesters  Appear  before  the  Commission — Are  not 
Permitted  to  Defend  Themselves — Division  in  the  Commission — Pro- 
testers Suspended — Intense  Interest  Felt  throughout  Scotland — Petitions 
Sent  to  the  Commission — Commission  Meet  in  November,  1733 — Higher 
Censure  Inflicted  by  the  Commission  upon  the  Protesters — The  Protest- 
ers Received  the  Sympathy  of  Many  in  the  Church — They  did  not  Se- 
ceed,  but  were  violently  Thrust  out — Meet  at  Gairney  Bridge  and  Organ- 
ize the  Associate  Presbytery. 

From  the  adjournment  of  the  Assembly  of  1722  to  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Assembly  of  1726,  the  church  was  in  a  ferment 
about  the  acts  passed  concerning  the  "Marrow  of  Modern  Di- 
vinity." 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  63 

During  all  this  time  Professor  Simson  was  busily  eni^aged 
in  teacliing  doctrines  subversive  not  only  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  but  also  diametrically  opposed  to  the 
whole  Christian  system.  He  continued  to  teach  his  former  er- 
rors, and  added  one  even  more  dangerous.  This  last  error  was 
the  denying  the  necessary  existence  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  teaching  that  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity  are 
not  numerically  one  in  substance  or  essence.  In  plain  lan- 
guage. Professor  Simson  taught,  in  his  theological  lectures,  that 
Jesils  Christ  is  not  divine — not  God  equal  with  the  Father. 

The  Glasgow  Professor  was  again  brought  before  the  Assem- 
bly', but  not  until  his  case  had  been  somewhat  examined  inta 
by  the  Presbytery  of  Glasgow.  The  case  was  begun  by  the 
Assembly  of  1726,  and  ended  by  the  Assembly  of  1729.  All 
the  charges  made  against  the  Professor  were  substantiated.  In 
fact,  after  the  crafty  Professor  had  exhausted  all  his  cunnings 
he  made  an  avowal  of  his  belief,  which  was  in  accordance  with 
the  standards  of  the  church,  but  he  at  the  same  time  acknowl- 
edged that  he  had  been  teaching  the  heterodox  doctrines 
of  which  he  had  been  charged.  His  first  attempt  was  to  con- 
fuse the  Assembly  with  his  metaphysical  statements  and  ex- 
planations. Finding  he  could  not  succeed  in  this,  his  next 
course  was  to  recant  and  thereby  save  his  salary,  if  he  could  not 
retain  his  position. 

That  the  rise  of  the  Secession  or  Associate  Presbytery  ma}' 
be  understood,  it  is  necessary  to  mention  the  fact  that  old  and 
dangerous  errors  had  at  this  time  been  exhumed  from  the  tomb 
in  which  they  had  lain  forgotten  for  a  long  period.  These  er- 
rors were,  in  a  number  of  ways,  assiduously  disseminated 
throughout  Christendom.  From  a  multitude  of  circumstances,, 
it  would  seem  that  doctrines  subversive  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  had  been  taught  in  the  Divinity  Hall  of  the 
University  of  Glasgow,  before  the  days  of  John  Simson.  A 
spirit  of  restlessness  seems  to  have  seized  not  a  few  of  the  promi- 
nent ministers  of  the  gospel  in  England,  and  Ireland  and  Scot- 
land. These  men,  through  the  pride  of  their  own  hearts  and 
the  temptations  of  the  Wicked  One,  set  about  in  earnest,  but 
cautiously  and  adroitly,  to  tear  down  the  fair  fabric  of  the 
whole  Christian  system.  Samuel  Clark,  William  Whiston 
and  Benjamin  Hoardly  boldly  gave  utterance  to  doctrines  which. 


(i4  IIISTOUY    OF    THE 

were  justly  regarded  bj^  all  pious  persons  as  bordering  on 
blasphemy.  The  Presbyterian  churches  in  England,  in  Switzer- 
land and  in  Ireland  were  disturbed  by  ministers  who  had 
adopted  these  startling  but  not  new  doctrines. 

All  these  errorists  were  leagued  together.  Prominent  among 
those  who  sowed  the  seeds  of  putrefaction  in  the  church  was 
the  "  Belfast  Society"  in  Ireland.  The  leaders  in  this  society 
Avere  John  Abernethy  and  James  Kirkpatrick,  These  men 
had  been  fellows-students  with  Professor  Simson  in  the  Divin- 
ity Hall  in  Glasgow,  and  ever  since  had  been  in  regular  cor- 
respondence wdth  him.  They  w-ere  men  of  decided  mental 
"DOAvers  and  had  made  no  mean  attainments  in  literature.  John 
Abernethy  was  no  ordinary  man,  and  exercised  a  decided  in- 
fluence over  all  the  3'oung  ministers  with  wdiora  he  came  in 
contact,  Like  Professor  Simson,  he  was  an  avow^ed  Arian  ; 
that  is,  he  denied  tl:e  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  1729  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
brought  the  second  trial  of  Professor  Simson  to  a  conclusion, 
but  not  to  the  honor  of  that  e-cclesiastical  court.  The  sin  of 
Professor  Simson  and  the  ]^unishment  inflicted  upon  him  b}- 
the  Assembly  bore  no  adequate  proportion  to  each  other.  He 
should  have  been  deposed  from  the  gospel  ministry.  He  wa-s 
only  suspended,  and  it  w^as  further  added  that  it  w^as  not 
proper  nor  safe  that  Mr.  Simson  be  longer  employed  in  teach- 
ing divinity.  This  being  done,  it  w^is  evident,  that  for  the 
sake  of  peace  the  whole  matter  should  be  allowed  to  rest. 

Except  Thomas  Boston,  none  of  the  Marrow  men  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly  of  1729.  He  prepared  ,a  protest  against 
the  decision  of  the  Assembly,  but  was  persuaded  to  waive  his 
right  to  have  the  paper  incorporated  in  the  minute.  A  num- 
ber of  the  31arroio  men  were  present,  but  only  as  spectators. 
Gabriel  AYilson  and  Mr.  Moncriefi',  of  Culfargie,  having  ob- 
tained })erniission  to  address  the  Assembly,  expressed  in 
strong  and  decided  terms,  their  dissatisfaction  wath  the  decis- 
ion of  the  Assembly.  The  two  Erskines  and  James  Hog  and 
some  others  privately  expressed  their  determination  to  adhere 
to  the  protest  offered  by  the  venerable  Boston. 

It  was  now  manifest  to  the  people  and  to  a  number  of  godly 
ministers  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  departed  from  her 
doctrinal  standards.     Her  highest  court   did  n.ot  hesitate  to 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  ()5 

censure  those  who  maintained  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  and  at  the  same  time  to  sustain  those  who  set  them- 
selves in  hostile  array  against  that  Confession  of  Faith. 

One  of  the  features  of  all  the  controversies  that  took  place 
in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  during  the  twenty  years  that  pre- 
ceded the  Secession,  was  that  they  had  a  direct  tendency  to 
drive  from  the  ^^  ational  Church  the  stanch  advocates  for  the 
doctrines  taught  in  the  "Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  If 
the  doctrines  taught  in  that  formula  are  correct,  then  those 
who  afterwards  seceded  from  the  Church  of  Scotland  were  or- 
thodox ;  otherwise,  they  were  not. 

There  was,  in  addition  to  the  two  causes  already"  mentioned, 
one  other,  which  led  to  the  organization  of  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery. This  was  the  system  of  patronage  which  existed  in 
the  Church  of  Scotland  at  that  time. 

As  many  do  not  have  a  clear  and  distinct  knowledge  of  what 
is  meant  by  "patronage,"  it  will  be  necessary  to  give  a  brief 
history  of  its  origin  and  practical  workings.  This  is  the  more 
necessary  since  the  enforcement  of  the  custom  (which  amounted 
to  a  law)  of  patronage  was,  more  than  anything  else,  the  ap- 
parent and  proximate  cause  of  the  Secession. 

The  patronage  law  had  reference  to  the  mode  of  settling  a 
minister  in  a  vacant  congregation.  In  strict  Presbyterian  con- 
gregations the  process  is  very  simple,  and  we  may  add,  strictly 
democratic.  When,  in  the  providence  of  God,  a  congregation 
becomes  destitute  of  a  pastor,  the  first  thing  that  is  done,  when 
the  fact  becomes  ofiicially  known  to  the  Presbytery  within 
whose  bounds  the  congregation  is  situated,  is,  the  Presbytery 
appoints  some  one  of  its  members  to  visit  the  congregation, 
preach  to  them  and  declare  the  congregation  vacant.  When- 
ever the  congregation  desire  to  secure  the  services  of  a  pastor, 
they  make  the  fact  known  to  the  presbytery,  and  a  member  of 
the  presbytery  is  appointed  to  moderate  a  call.  In  other 
words,  some  member  of  the  presbytery,  under  whose  inspec- 
tion the  members  of  the  congregation  have  voluntarily  placed 
themselves,  is  appointed  to  act  as  chairman  of  a  public  meeting 
of  the  congregation,  at  which  a  call  is  made  out  for  some  in- 
dividual to  take  the  pastoral  care  of  the  congregation.  At 
this  meeting  of  the  congregation,  or  usually  at  a  previous  meet- 
ing, a  pastor  is  chosen  by  ballot. 

6 


66  HISTORY    OF    THE 

It  is  manifest  that  this  process  secures  to  the  people  the  right 
to  choose  the  pastor  whom  they  may  desire.  Keither  the  dea- 
cons nor  the  elders,  nor  the  presbytery  nor  the  synod,  nor  the 
General  Assembly  nor  all  these  combined,  can  place  a  pastor 
over  a  congregation  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  majority,  or 
even  a  respectable  minority  of  the  members  of  the  congrega- 
tion. This  is  one  feature  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyte- 
rian Church.  It  is  a  grand  feature.  It  gives  the  people  the 
privilege  of  enjoying  that  precious  gospel  privilege  of  having 
jtastors  according  to  their  choice. 

Such  was  not  the  case  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  previous  to- 
the  days  of  the  secession.  Such  a  thing  never  had  existed  in 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  not  even  during  the  period  Vv'hich 
elapsed  between  1638  and  1650,  her  palmiest  days. 

It  is  true,  that  in  the  First  Book  of  Discipline,  prepared 
mainl}^  by  John  Knox,  the  lawful  vocation  of  a  pastor  was  vested 
in  the  people,  but  it  seems  never  to  liave  been  put  into  practi- 
cal operation  ;  for  in  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline  the  choice 
of  a  pastor  was  vested  in  the  eldership,  only  granting  the  peo- 
ple the  right  to  acquiesce  or  dissent.  In  1649,  shortl}^  after  the 
adoption  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  framed  and  published 
along  with  its  minutes  a  Directory  for  the  choice  of  a  pastor.. 
In  this  Directory  it  is  provided  that  "the  session  of  the  con- 
gregation shall  meet  and  proceed  to  the  election  "  of  a  pastor. 

It  matters,  practically',  very  little  what  were  the  instructions 
given  in  either  the  First  or  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline,  for 
the  law  of  patronages  and  presentations  enacted  by  the  Parlia- 
ment was  not  repealed  until  1649. 

The  Directory  of  1649  continued  in  full  force ;  that  is,  the 
sessions  of  vacant  congregations  continued  to  meet  and  choose 
the  pastors  for  such  congregations  until  1660.  In  that  year 
Charles  II.  again  revived  the  law  of  patronage,  and  all  the 
ministers  who  had  been  settled  as  pastors  over  congregations 
since  1649,  were  required  by  law  to  accept  a  presentation  from 
the  legal  patron,  or  be  thrust  out. 

After  the  Restoration,  in  1690,  patronages  and  presentations 
were  partially,  and  only  partially,  abolished.  In  appearance, 
an  advance  was  made  towards  genuine  Presbyterianism  ;  but  it 
was  only  in  appearance.     The  people  were  still  deprived  of 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  67 

the  privilege  of  choosing  their  pastors.  This  privilege  was 
vested  in  the  sessions  and  the  Protestant  land  owners,  if  the 
congregation  was  in  the  country,  and  in  the  magistrates,  town 
council  and  sessions,  if  the  congregation  was  in  a  town. 

It  requires  only  a  limited  knowledge  of  human  nature  to  he 
able  to  discern  that  such  a  reo-ulation  made  the  way  to  violent 
abuses  open  and  easy.  It  placed  the  many  at  the  mercy  of  the 
few.  In  order  that  this  may  he  understood,  it  is  onl}^  neces- 
sary to  know  the  origin  of  the  right  of  patronage  and  the 
powers  which  it  conferred  upon  a  patron. 

The  right  of  patronage  was  the  power  to  present  some  one 
to  a  vacant  congregation  as  a  proper  person  to  be  its  pastor  and 
receive  the  benefice.  It  was  clearly  a  relic  of  the  dark  days  of 
Popery.  This  right  of  patronage  was  originally  acquired  in  a 
variety  of  ways.  Sometimes  an  individual  gave  a  lot  on  which 
to  erect  a  church,  with  the  reserved  right  that  the  choice  of  a 
pastor  for  that  church  or  congregation  should  be  vested  in  him 
and  his  heirs  forever.  This  was  liable  to  great  abuse.''  The 
donor  of  the  church  site  might  be  a  good  and  pious  man;  but 
his  heirs  might  neither  fear  God  nor  regard  man,  and  place- 
over  the  congregation  a  pastor  likeminded  with  themselves. 
The  right  to  select  the  patron  for  a  particular  congregation  was- 
often  bestowed  by  a  bishop,  and  frequently  sold  by  a  bishop  to 
some  one.  The  more  conmion  mode  of  obtaining  this  right 
was  by  a  direct  gift  from  the  Pope  of  Rome. 

This  right  of  patronage  was,  to  all  intents,  real  i:)rop- 
erty.  It  could  be  disposed  of  by  will ;  it  could  be  sold,  or 
it  could  be  given  away.  It  is  most  evident  that  it  deprived 
the  people  of  those  rights  which  God  as  a  God  of  creation  be- 
stows upon  all  men,  and  as  a  God  of  grace  bestows  upon  all 
believers.  Such  a  system  was  calculated  either  to  crush  out 
the  spirit  of  freedom  or  incite  rebellion.  It  was  never  accept- 
able to  the  Scotch  people  after  the  days  of  the  First  Reforma- 
tion, and  vigorous  but  unsuccessful  efforts  were  frequently  made 
to  abolish  the  system. 

In  1711,  the  act  of  1G90,  which  partially  abolished  patron- 
age, was  rescinded,  and  the  unrighteous  system  again  foisted 
upon  the  people.  For  some  time  it  was  attended  with  little 
evil  consequences.  The  reasoii  of  this  was  the  fact  that  it  was 
generally  regarded  by  the  masses  as  disreputable  for  a  minister 


08  HISTORY    OF    THE 

to  settle  ilia  congregation  as  pastor  without  a  regular  call  from 
the  people.  The  patrons,  too,  were  at  first  prudent  and  re- 
served in  exercising  their  legal  rights.  For  a  number  of  years, 
after  1711 ,  patrons  generally  tacitly  allowed  the  people  of  vacant 
congregations  to  choose  their  own  pastors ;  or  where  the  people 
of  vacant  congregations  neglected  to  exercise  this  divine  right, 
the  Presbytery  w^as  allowed  to  settle  a  pastor  over  the  congre- 
gation in  accordance  with  wdiat  they  called  the  Jus  Devolutum. 
By  the  Jus  Devolutum  was  meant  an  unpresbyterial  provision 
which  obtained  at  that  time  in  the  Church  of  Scotland.  It 
was  provided  that  should  neither  the  session,  magistrates, 
town  council  nor  patron,  settle  a  pastor  over  a  vacant  congre- 
gation within  six  months  after  it  became  vacant,  then  the  right 
devolved  upon  the  Presbytery.  This  was  the  Jus  Devolutum. 
It  was  a  species  of  monarchy.  The  people  were  forced  to  have 
a  pastor,  but  not  permitted  to  select  that  pastor.  Some  one 
must  do  that  for  them. 

It  was  not  long  until  a  number  of  ministers  ceased  to  regard 
the  public  odium  which  attached  to  accepting  a  presentation. 
The  church  now  became  divided  and  bitter  and  opposing  feel- 
ings were  aroused.  The  mass  of  the  laity  w^ere  opposed  to  the 
patronage  law,  both  in  theory  and  practice.  The  clergy  were 
divided.  No  doubt  this  division  of  the  clergy,  on  the  law  of 
patronage  and  presentation,  was  due,  in  part,  to  the  fact  that 
in  the  reorganization  of  the  National  Church  of  Scotland,  in 
1690,  policy  rather  than  principle  predominated. 

The  people  began  to  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  presby- 
teries and  synods  to  the  General  Assembly.  The  popular  cla- 
mor was  loud  that  the  divine  right  of  election  might  be 
restored  to  the  members  of  vacant  congregations.  The 
General  Assembly  was  cramped.  Such  was  the  general  and 
deep-seated  corruption  of  the  clei'gy  respecting  the  rights  of 
the  people,  that  a  majority  of  every  Assembly  were  thoroughly 
in  favor  of  the  rigid  enforcement  of  the  law  of  patronage. 
Still,  there  was  ever  a  minorit}''  in  each  Assembly  w^ho  fear- 
lessly and  boldly  advocated  the  cause  of  the  people.  Under 
the  circumstances,  the  General  Assembly,  had  it  been  unani- 
mous, could  not  have  rendered  any  relief  to  those  who  appealed 
to  it  for  assistance.  The  law  recluired  that  pastors  for  vacant 
congregations  should  be  chosen  by  the  elders  and  landholders. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  69 

TJnfortuuately  there  was  a  very  stroi]g  part}'  who  were  in 
favor  of  placing  the  whole  business  of  supplying  pastors  for 
vacant  churches  in  the  hands  of  the  patrons  of  these  congrega- 
tions. All  that  the  Assembly  did  was  to  appoint  committees  to 
do  the  work  which  constituticnally  belonged  to  the  presbytery. 
It  frequently  occurred  that  a  presbytery  would  not  consent  to 
install  a  minister  over  a  congregation  against  the  will  of  the 
people.  To  meet  such  emergencies,  a  committee  was  appointed 
by  the  General  Assembly  whose  duty  was  to  ride  around  the 
country  and  insfall  pastors  in  refractory  congregations. 
The  law  was  imperative,  and  whenever  patron  and  presentee 
insisted  upon  their  rights,  this  "riding  committee,"  as  it 
was  rightly  called,  would  perpetrate  the  awful — we  dare 
not  say  farcical  sin — of  making  a  man  the  pastor  of  a  peo- 
peoplc  who  would  not  hear  him  preach.  Things  soon  be- 
came alarming.  It  was  no  very  uncoinmon  thing  for  the  peo- 
ple to  threaten  resistance.  When  this  was  the  case,  resort  wa& 
had  to  arms  by  the  patronage  party.  The  military  was  called 
out,  and  with  drums  and  fifes,  and  with  all  the  pomp  and 
pageantry  of  war,  the  party  advanced  through  town  and 
country  to  the  church.  The  roadsides  were  lined  with  idle 
spectators,  and  with  grieved,  outraged  and  insulted  Christians. 
The  desire  of  the  patron  and  presentee  was  accom}»lishefl.  The 
latter  was  made,  by  force  of  arms,  pastor  of  a  people  who  did 
not  desire  him,  and  who  never  could  love  him, and  never  would 
be  instructed  by  him. 

It  is  manifest  to  any  reflecting  mind  that  such  a  state  of 
things  could  not  exist  long  among  a  people  not  already  reduced 
to  the  condition  of  abject  and  hopeless  slavery.  The  crisis 
was  fast  approaching  wdien  reformation,  rebellion  or  secession 
was  inevitable.  There  is  no  way  of  concealing  the  fact  that 
the  acts  of  the  prevailing  party  in  the  Church  of  Scotland 
tended,  and  that  directly,  to  the  establishment  of  a  system  of 
the  most  unexampled  tyranny. 

In  1731  an  overture  was  brought  before  the  Assembly  for 
the  purpose  of  crushing  out  of  the  church  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  right  of  a  congregation  to  choose  their  own  pastor,  and 
also  for  the  purpose  of  silencing  forever  those  who  dared  to 
advocate  this  doctrine.  The  avowed  object  of  this  overture 
was  to  establish  a  uniform  mode  of  settlino-  vacant  churches. 


70  HISTORY    OF    THE 

This  was  certainly  desiraljle,  provided  it  was  proposed  to  act 
uniformly  right.  This  it  was  not,  however,  proposed  to  do. 
By  this  overture  it  was  proposed  to  deprive  the  people  in  every 
section  of  the  land  of  all  relio'ious  liberty.  The  object  de- 
signed by  the  dominant  party  was  that  the  civil  law  of  the 
land  respecting  the  settlement  of  vacant  churches  should  be 
rigid  I}-  enforced,  and  that  henceforth  no  reasons  of  dissent 
against  the  determination  of  cliurch  judicatories  should  be 
entered  on  the  record.  This  overture  was  sent  down  to  the 
presbyteries,  but  it  was  provided  that  in*  the  meantime  it 
should  be  regarded  the  law  of  the  church.  In  1732,  fort^'-nine 
presbyteries,  through  their  commissioners,,  sent  up  reports. 
Thirty-one  presbyteries  were  opposed  to  the  overture ;  twelve 
required  it  to  be  materially  amended  before  becoming  a  law. 
Only  six  ]tresb3'teries  were  willing  that  it  be,  without  change, 
passed  into  a  law.  Xo  report  ^^■as  received  from  eighteen 
presbyteries.  More  than  one  half  of  the  ])resbyteries  heard 
from  Avere  opposed  to  the  overture  as  it  had  been  sent  to  them. 
Such  being  the  case,  the  overture  was,  according  to  Presby- 
terial  usage,  no  longer  before  the  Assembly.  Strange  to  say, 
the  Assembly  added  the  eighteen  presbj-teries  not  heard  from 
to  the  eighteen  whici)  were  either  in  favor  of  the  overture  as 
it  stood,  or  as  amended,  and  decided  that  the  majority  of  the 
church  was  in  favor  of  tlie  overture.  This  was  a  gratuitous 
conclusion.  The  Assembly  did  not  know  officially,  and  con- 
sequentl}'  did  not  know  at  all,  how  the  eighteen  presbyteries, 
which  had  not  reported,  would  vote  on  the  overture. 

Tyrants  are  not  over-scrupulous.  The  majority  in  the  As- 
sembly desired  the  overture  passed  into  a  law,  and  they  deter- 
mined that  a  law  it  should  be,  no  matter  what  the  presbyteries 
or  people  might  think  or  say  to  the  contrary.  So  far  as  the  As- 
sembly was  able  to  judge  by  the  Presbyterial  reports,  a  decided 
majority  was  opposed  to  the  overture,  and  to  the  mass  of 
the  people  of  Scotland,  it  was  very  obnoxious.  It  appears  that 
unfair  and  unrighteous  means  were  constantly"  resorted  to  in 
the  selection  of  the  members  to  the  General  Assembly.  It 
rarely  was  the  case,  from  the  Revolution  to  the  time  of  which  we 
are  speaking,  and  for  a  number  of  years  after,  that  the  General 
Assenddy  was  a  fair  exponent  of  the  sentiments  of  the  people. 
The  pe()[>le  were  constantly,  and  in  great  numbers,  petitioning. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTEUY.  71 

for  redress  of  grievances.  Ministei's  and  elders  from  all  sec- 
tions of  the  country  were  accustomed  to  send  up  complaints  to, 
perhaps,  every  Assembly.  The  dominant  party  in  the  Church 
of  Scotland  expected,  hy  this  overture,  to  silence  forever  all 
complaints.  It  was  a  modest,  but  most  eftectual  wa^'of  declar- 
ing that  the  General  Assembl}'  was  infallible.  It  had  a  direct 
tendeiic}'  to  ignore  the  presbyteries  and  crush  the  people. 

As  this  overture  was  the  immediate  cause  of  the  Secession, 
it  will  be  necessary  that  we  be  minute  in  our  details.  Against 
the  action  of  the  Assembly  in  adopting  the  overture,  a  number 
of  ministers,  of  w^hom  Ebenezer  Erskine  was  the  acknowledged 
leader,  protested.  At  the  same  meeting,  a  petition  signed  by 
forty-two  ministers  and  three  elders,  begging  the  Assembl}- not 
to  adopt  the  overture,  was  handed  in.  Xo  less  than  seventeen 
hundred  people  sent  up  a  petition,  in  which  they  earnestly 
sought  redress  of  grievances.  The  protest  of  Ebenezer  Ers- 
kine was  not  allowed  to  bo  read,  and  the  petition  of  the  forty- 
two  ministers  and  three  elders,  as  well  as  the  complaint  of  the 
seventeen  hundred  people,  was  treated  with  the  most  profound 
contempt.  A  feeling  of  indignation  and  alarm  spread  all  over 
Scotland.  The  people  generally  were  indignant  because  the 
General  Assembly,  in  not  noticing  their  complaints,  had  added 
insult  to  injury,  and  the  orthodox  ministers  and  the  people  as  a 
whole  were  alarmed,  lest  the  Assembly,  which  now  claimed  in- 
fallibility, would  advance  one  more  step  and  take  away  all  the 
landmarks  of  the  Reformation.  Ebenezer  Erskine  published 
his  protest  in  the  form  of  a  pamphlet  entitled  "  Defections  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland  from  her  Reformation  Principles." 
Fifteen  of  the  forty-two  ministers  also  protested  against  the 
treatment  the}-  had  received  from  the  Assembly.  The  people, 
no  longer  able  to  make  themselves  heard  by  the  Church,  ap- 
pealed to  the  civil  ofhcers  of  the  land,  and  "  took  instruments 
at  the  hand  of  a  notary." 

Great  excitement  now  prevailed  throughout  the  whole  coun- 
tr}'^,  and  the  action  of  the  commission  had  no  tendency  what- 
ever to  allay  it.  The  congregation  of  Kinross  was,  at  this 
time  (1732),  vacant.  The  people  had  invited  Francis  Craig  to 
become  their  pastor,  but  tlie  presentation  had  been-  given  to 
Robert  Stark.  The  congregation  was  under  the  care  of  the 
Presbyter}'  of  Dunfermline.     Since  the  people  all  desired  Craig, 


72  HISTORY    OF    THE 

and  none  of  tlieni  Stark,  the  presbytery  refused  to  ordain  and 
install  Stark.  The  commission,  in  the  exercise  of  its  unlimited 
and  arbitrary  powers,  forthwith  appointed  a  committee  to  pro- 
ceed at  once  to  Kinross  and  settle  Stark  over  the  congregation, 
in  spite  of  both  the  people  and  the  Presbytery.  The  people 
and  the  Presbytery  separately  complained  to  the  commission, 
that  in  the  settlement  of  Stark,  the  constitutional  law  and  or- 
der of  the  church  had  been  trampled  under  foot,  and  that  the 
heaveil-bequeathed  rights  of  the  people  had  been  ignored. 
Their  petitions  and  complaints  only  served  to  excite  vengeance 
in  the  bosom  of  the  commission.  The  Presbytery  was  ordered, 
in  imperious  tones,  to  put  the  name  of  Stark  upon  its  rolL  No 
protests  were  allowed.  The  powder  of  the  Commission  was  un- 
limited, and  regarding  itself  infallible,  it  quickly  determined 
that  its  mandates,  whether  right  or  wrong,  should  be  most 
scrupulously  obeyed.  The  matter  was  taken  to  the  Assembly 
of  1733,  but  the  highest  judiciary  of  the  church  not  only  con- 
lirmed  the  action  of  the  commission,  but  ordered  that  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Dunfermline  must  respect  the  intruder  Stark  as  a  co- 
presbyter.  The  commission  was  charged  to  keep  a  close  watch 
over  the  Presbytery,  and  see  that  this  last  instruction  of  the 
Assembly  was  rigidly  obeyed  to  the  letter.  If  the  Presbytery 
was  found  to  be  disobedient,  its  members  were  to  be  subjected 
to  the  highest  censure  of  the  church — excommunication.  In 
all  this  we  can  see  a  spirit  of  tyranny  rarely  equalled  and  never  . 
surpassed.  The  reasoning  of  the  dominant  party  in  the  Church 
of  Scotland  was  such  as  is  used  only  by  those  who  lord  over 
the  heritage  of  God.  The  constitutional  party  had  but  one 
privilege  left — the  right  to  testify  from  the  pulpit  against  these 
tyrannical  and  oppressive  measures.  This  })rivilege,  it  was  de- 
termined by  the  dominant  party,  should  be  taken  from  them. 
Things  were  rushing,  as  if  driven  by  a  tornado,  to  that  state 
when  silent  acquiescence  in  all  the  acts  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly and  its  commission  would  be  made  a  term  of  ministerial 
and  Christian  communion.  To  all  human  appearance,  the  time 
was  not  fur  distant  when  a  petition  to  the  General  Assembly 
for  a  redress  of  grievances,  or  a  complaint  on  account  of  injur\', 
would  be  followed  by  excommunication  from  the  pale  of  the 
church.  This  is  what  the  dominarjt  party,  most  of  all  things, 
desired. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  73 

Ever  since  1690,  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  been  only  nom- 
inally a  unit.  In  reality,  it  had  been  greatly  divided.  The 
anti-Presbyterian  party  had  gained  the  ascendency  in  the  church 
courts;  but  it  had  acquired  its  power  not  honestly,  but  by  a 
SN'stem  of  ecclesiastical  fraud  and  political  scheming.  There 
were  in  the  church  a  number  of  able  ministers  who  stood  up 
manfully  for  the  constitution  of  the  church  and  the  Word  of 
God.  Prominent  among  these,  after  the  death  of  Thomas 
Boston,  was  Ebenezer  Erskine,  a  man  of  deep-toned  piety,  ex- 
tensive theological  attainments,  and  one  of  the  most  eloquent 
and  instructive  preachers  of  his  day.  In  fact,  Ebenezer  Erskine 
and  his  brother  Ralph  have,  as  evangelical  ministers,  had  few 
equals  and  fewer  superiors.  The  dominant  party  in  the  church 
had  no  love  for  Ebenezer  Erskine.  In  fact,  the^'-  hated  him. 
He  stood  like  an  adamantine  wall  in  the  path  of  their  innova- 
tions. 

The  dominant  party  were  attempting  to  rob  Jesus  Christ  of 
His  kingly  office,  and  the  servants  of  Christ  of  their  sacred 
privileges.  On  the  4th  of  June,  1732,  soon  after  the  adjournment 
of  the  General  Assembly,  Mr.  Erskine  exposed,  in  a  sermon  of 
commanding  power,  the  unconstitutional  acts  of  the  Assembly. 
Thesermon  was  based  upon  Isaiah,  ix.  6 :  "The  government  shall 
be  upon  his  shoulder.'"'  On  the  10th  of  October  following,  the 
Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling  met  at  Perth.  Mr.  Erskine  was 
the  retiring  moderator.  His  opening  sermon  was  preached 
from  Psalm  cxviii.  22.  "  The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected 
is  become  the  head  of  the  corner."  In  this  sermon  it  is  shown 
that  David  was  opposed  b}-  Saul ;  that  Jesus  Christ  was  op- 
posed by  the  Jewish  priest  and  rulers,  and  that  the  blood- 
bought  church  of  God  had  its  bitter  enemies  and  rejectors  in 
Scotland.  The  Synod  was  no  sooner  constituted  and  a  new 
moderator  elected,  than  Mr.  Adam  Ferguson  moved  that  a 
committee  be  appointed  to  consider  the  statements  made  in 
Mr.  Erskine's  sermon.  The  motion  was  favored  by  Mr.  James 
Mercer,  Mr.  James  Mackie  and  the  Laird  of  Glendoig.  This 
motion  called  out  a  long  discussion,  but  the  Synod  finally 
agreed  to  appoint  a  committee  whose  business  should  be  to  col- 
lect the  objectionable  passages  in  the  sermon  and  present  them 
at  the  next  session  of  the  Synod.  The  committee  before  pre- 
senting their  report  to  the  Synod,  appointed  four  of  their  num- 


74  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ber  to  hold  a  conference  with  Mr.  Erskine  for  the  purpose  of 
persua(lin_£;  him  to  retract  the  objectionable  parts  of  his  ser- 
mon, and  to  x^romise  tliat  in  the  future  he  would  refrain  from 
ojiving  utterance  to  similar  opinions.  This  sub-committee  met 
with  ^Ir.  Erskine  and  stated  their  demands,  to  which  ]\Ir.  Ers- 
kine replied  that  he  had  uttered  nothing  in  his  sermon  which 
his  conscience  would  allow  him  to  retract.  On  the  next  day, 
the  committee,  according  to  instructions,  reported  to  the  Synod. 
In  this  report,  they  presented  a  number  of  objectionable  pas- 
sages collected  from  memory,  from  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Erskine. 

As  this  sermon  was  the  proximate  cause  which  led,  about  a 
year  afterward,  to  the  formation  of  the  Associate  or  Secession 
Presbytery,  it  will  be  necessary  to  give  the  matter  a  careful 
and  candid  investigation.  The  sermon  was  preached  on  the 
10th  of  October,  17ii2,  and  was  published  shortly  afterward. 
It  will  be  found  in  the  first  volume  of  Mr.  Erskine's  collected 
sermons,  and  is  to-day  regarded  b}'  the  mass  of  God's  people, 
of  all  denoiiiinations,  as  strictly  orthodox.  It  is,  as  any  reader 
may  discover,  what  is  called  a  textual  sermon.  The  truths 
taught  or  suggested  by  the  text  are  clearly  and  fulh^  brought 
out.  It  would  not  be  saying  too  much  to  say  that  this  sermon, 
like  the  rest  of  Mr.  Erskine's  sermons,  is  in  itself  a  complete 
body  of  divinity.  Tty  it  the  mind  of  tlie  true  child  of  God  is 
enlightened  and  his  heart  warmed. 

The  committee  to  whom  Avas  referred  this  sermon  reported 
eight  objectionable  passages,  upon  which  the}^  founded  four 
charges.  Every  one  of  the  objectionable  passages,  unfortunate- 
ly for  the  committee,  are  clearly  in  accordance  with  the  ex- 
press and  positive  teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  These  passages 
being  quoted  by  the  committee,  from  memory,  are  not  verb- 
ally the  same  as  those  contained  in  the  sermon  itself;  still, 
they  arc,  in  the  main,  correct.  One  of  the  passages  was,  that 
Mr.  Erskine,  in  speaking  of  the  corruptions  of  the  Jewish 
priests,  said  he  "  left  it  to  the  consciences  of  every  one  to  judge 
what  of  these  corruptions  were  to  be  found  among  ourselves  at 
this  day."  Another  passage  was  that  it  was  said  in  tlie  ser- 
mon that  "  mistaken  notions  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  ground  of  manv  thino-s  which  were  wrong  amongst 
us  at  this  day."  "  The  Jewish  teachers,"  he  said,  "being  con- 
nected with  the  great,  trampled  upon  the  people  as  an  unhal- 


ASSOCIATE    PRKSBYTERY.  15 

lowed  mob."  "  That  it  was  a  tr^eat  crime  to  intrude  in  the 
office  of  a  minister  an  individual  who  did  not  have  a  call. 
That  to  be  a  minister  two  things  are  necessary — the  call  of 
God  and  the  call  of  the  church.  That  every  family  and  every 
•society  has  a  natural  riii;ht  to  select  servants  for  themselves. 
The  church  is  the  freest  society  on  earth  ;  therefore  the  church 
has  the  right  to  choose  its  own  ministers."  In  speaking  of 
the  encroachments  which  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  made 
ujDon  the  kingly  office  of  Jesus  Christ,  Mr.  Erskine  said  that 
the  Saviour  "  was  deeply  Avounded  by  the  Assembly  of  1732, 
by  lodging  the  power  of  choosing  pastors  for  vacant  congrega- 
tions in  the  hands  of  heritors  (land-owners)  and  elders,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  people." 

We  leave  it  to  the  decision  of  every  Bible  reader  if  everyone 
of  these  passages  are  not  in  strict  accordance  with  the  word  of 
'God  and  the  history  of  the  times.  Every  sentiment  they  contain 
may  be  ap[)ropriately  uttered,  at  any  time,  by  any  minister  of 
the  New  Testameiit.  The  committee  based  upon  these  pas- 
sages the  following  charges  against  Mr.  Erskine: 

1.  '"That  the  strain  of  a  great  part  of  the  sermou  appears  to  compare 
the  ministers  of  this  church  with  the  most  corrupt  teachers  under  the  Old 
Testament." 

2.  "He  refnses  that  any  minister  had  God's  call,  who  had  only  a  call 
from  the  heritors,  or  any  other  set  of  men  ;  by  which  he  excludes  the  whole 
ministeis  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  himself  among  them,  from  having 
the  caii  of  God,  the  body  of  Christians  having  never  been  allowed  to  vote  in 
the  election  of  a  minister. 

;5.   '•  He  charges  our  forefathers  with  a  sinful  silence  or  negligence.     ^ 
4.   '•That  he  spoke  disrespectfully  of  the  act  of  the  Assembly  lodging 
the  power  of  election  in  heritors  and  elders." 

It  is  manifest  that  these  charges  were  brought  against  Mr. 
Erskine  because  the  Bible  truths  which  he  preached  were  un- 
palatable to  some  of  the  committee,  and  the  sins  and  corrup- 
tions and  innovations  which  he  exposed,  were  iniquities  with 
which  they  covered  themselves  as  with  a  garment.  James  Mercer 
was  a  "■  hot,- violent  man,  a  plague  on  the  Presbytery  of  Perth, 
iind  most  active  always  in  a  bad  cause."  James  ]Mackie  was  a 
man  "  smooth  and  subtile,  but  iiis  hand  was  ever  deep  in  the 
course  of  defection."  The  Laird  of  Glcndoig  was  "  a  follower 
of  the  fashions  of  this  world."  These,  with  sev^eral  others  of 
the  same  school,  set  themselves  against  Mr.  Erskine  because  the 
Bible  truths  which  he  preached  were  unpalatable  to  them. 


7()  HISTORY    OF    THE 

After  the  committee  had,  in  due  form,  presented  their  re- 
port to  the  Synod  and  made  such  remarks  concerning  it  as  they 
saAV  fit,  Mr.  Erskinc  asked  that  lie  might  be  favored  with  a 
copy  of  it,  as  he  designed  preparing  a  written  defence  of  him- 
self. This  reasonable  refpicst  was  positively  denied  him,  and 
it  was  with  great  difficulty  that  he  obtained  permission  to  see 
the  report.  It  is  characteristic  of  tyrants  to  be  unreason- 
able, arbitrary  and  cruel.  What  could  be  more  unreasonable, 
more  arbitrary  and  more  cruel  than  to  refuse  to  give  Mr.  Ers- 
kine  a  copy  of  the  charges  which  wgre  brought  against  him? 
Such  a  course  deprived  him  of  his  natural  liberty  and  of  his 
ecclesiastical  rights.  The  end  designed  to  be  accomplished  was 
to  crush  him,  and  with  him  to  crush  all  who  were  like-minded 
with  himself. 

Mr.  Erskine  was  not  to  be  awed  into  silence.  When  the  re- 
})ort  of  the  committee  came  before  the  Synod  for  consideration, 
Mr.  Erskine  read  an  answer  to  all  the  charges.  In  this  paper 
he  showed  that  the  first  charge  was  not  justified  by  anything 
that  he  had  said  in  his  sermon.  I'hat  there  are  corrupt  min- 
isters in  the  Church  of  Scotland  he  boldly  maintained  ;  but 
there  are  a  great  number  of  ministers  in  the  same  Church  who 
are  not  corrupt.  The  fallacy,  or  rather  malice  of  the  commit- 
tee consisted  in  charging  Mr.  Ersiiine  with  saying  that  all  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  were  corrupt,  when  he  only 
intimated  that  some  were  corru];)t.  The  first  charge  was 
founded  on  the  following  jiassages  in  the  sermon  :  "I  leave  it 
to  every  one  to  judge  how  far  such  evils  or  corruptions  are  to 
be  found  in  our  day."  *•'  I  am  persuaded  that  carnal  notions  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is  not  of  this  world,  lie  at  the  bot- 
tom of  many  of  the  evils  and  corruptions  in  the  day  in  Avhich  we 
live."  Nothing  but  an  intellect  blinded  by  malice  and  de- 
praved l)y  wilful  ignorance,  could  ever  be  led  either  to  frame 
or  support  the  first  charge  by  these  declarations.  It  was  a  part 
of  Mr.  Erskine's  duty  as  a  faithful  minister  of  the  gospel  to  ex- 
hort his  hearers  to  make  a  personal  application  of  the  truths  of 
God's  Word  to  themselves.  With  regard  to  the  other  passage, 
it  may  be  remarked  that  Mr.  Erskine  might  have  used  even 
stronger  language  than  he  did,  and  still  have  been  able  to  sup- 
port it  by  the  Scri])tures.  Carnal  notions  of  Christ's  kingdom 
lie  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  corruptions  in  the  church  so  far  as 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  (  ( 

its  government  is  concerned.  In  fact,  carnal  notions  of  Christ's 
kingdom  are  connected,  in  some  wa}'  or  other,  with  all  corrup- 
tion. 

When  Mr.  Erskine  asserted  the  kingship  of  Jesus  Christ, 
he  touched  a  tender  place  in  a  very  considerable  number  of  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  at  that  time.  The  opin- 
ion was  very  common  that  the  General  Assembly  and  the 
commission  was  king  over  the  heritage  of  God.  This  opinion, 
most  assuredly  had  its  origin  in  the  carnal  notions  concerning 
the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

In  answering  the  second  charge,  Mr.  Erskine  stated  that  the 
language  upon  which  it  was  founded  was  not  quoted  correctly. 
He  then  read  what  lie  had  said.     It  is  as  follows: 

"There  is  a  twofold  call  necessary  for  a  minister  meddling  as  a  builder  in 
the  church  of  God;  there  is  a  call  of  God,  and  of  his  church,  God's  call 
consists  in  his  qualifying  a  man  for  the  work,  and  in  his  inspiring  him  with 
a  lioly  zeal  and  desire  to  enii)loy  those  qualifications  for  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  good  of  his  church.  The  call  of  the  church  lies  in  the  free  call  and  elec- 
tion of  the  Christian  people.  The  promise  of  conduct  and  counsel  in  the 
choice  of  men  that  are  to  build,  is  not  made  to  patrons,  heritors,  or  any  other 
set  of  men,  but  to  the  church,  the  body  of  Christ,  to  whom  apostles,  pro- 
phets, evangelists,  pastors  and  teachers  are  given.  As  it  is  a  natural  privi- 
lege for  every  house  or  society  of  men  to  have  the  choice  of  their  own  sei-- 
vants  or  officers,  so  it  is  the  privilege  of  the  house  of  God,  in  a  particular 
manner.  What  a  miserable  bondage  would  it  be  reckoned  for  any  family  to 
have  stewai'ds  or  servants  imposed  upon  them  by  strangers  who  might  give 
the  children  a  stone  for  bread,  or  a  scorpion  instead  of  a  fish,  poison  instead 
of  medicine!  And  shall  we  suppose  that  God  ever  granted  a  power  to  any 
set  of  men,  patrons,  heritors,  or  whatever  they  may  be,  a  power  to  impose 
servants  on  his  family,  without  his  own  consent,  they  being  the  freest  society 
in  the  world?" 

Having  read  from  his  sermon  the  above  quotation,  Mr.  Ers- 
kine calmly,  but  with  an  air  of  Christian  majesty,  said : 

"I  adhere  to  my  notes,  but  deny  that  from  what  I  said,  it  can  be  inferred 
that  I  look  upon  all  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  as  thieves  and 
robbers." 

With  regard  to  the  latter  clause  of  the  second  charge,  he 
made  the  following  declaration  : 

"From  the  Revolution  till  the  act  of  patronage  came  to  be  in  force,  I 
know  of  no  settlements  but  where  the  body  of  the  Christian  people  concurred 
in  the  election  of  their  minister,  and  in  the  practice  of  the  church,  till  of  late, 
they  were  allowed  to  vote." 

This  was  the  truth,  and  none  but  the  grossly  ignorant  would 
have  made  a  contradictory  statement.  With  regard  to  the  sec- 
ond charge,  Mr.  Erskine  concluded  by  giving  utterance  to  a 


78  HISTORY    OF    THE 

bold  but  as  noble  and  scriptural  a  sentiment  as  ever  escaped 
from  the  lips  of  man :  "  I  own,"  said  he,  "  the  call  of  a  minis- 
ter ought  not  to  be  by  heritors  as  such,  since  no  such  titles  or 
distinctions  of  men  are  known  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  The 
only  heritors  that  arc  there  are  they  that  are  rich  in  faith.'' 
That  church  is  surely  in  a  most  degraded  state  when  it  is  will- 
ing to  be  governed  by  the  rich  to  the  exclusion  of  the  godly 
poor. 

The  third  charge  was  founded  by  the  committee  upon  the 
following  words  in  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Erskine: 

"  I  do  not  remember  of  any  particular  act  of  Assembly,  since  the  Revo- 
lution, by  which  the  rights  of  the  Crown  of  Christ  are  asserted,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  encroachments  that  were  made  upon  them  in  those  days  of  public 
apostacy  and  persecution.'" 

Mr.  Erskine  told  the  Synod  that  in  the  event  such  an  act  of 
the  Assembly  could  be  shown,  he  would  gladly  own  he  w^as 
mistaken  in  what  he  had  said.  Every  brave  man,  not  to  say 
Christian  man,  will  own  that  this  wns  honorable.  What  Mr. 
.Erskine  uttered  was  true,  and  the  deductions  he  made  from  the 
facts  were  fair  and  just. 

The  fourth  charge  Avas  founded  upon  what  was  said  by  Mr. 
Erskine  about  the  act  of  the  Assembly  of  1732,  giving  the  elec- 
tion of  pastors  to  the  heritors  and  elders.  In  reply  to  this 
charge  jSfr.  Erskine  said: 

"I  dare  not  retract  my  testimony  against  it  (the  act)  either  before  the 
Assembly,  the  day  after  it  was  passed  into  an  act,  or  by  what  I  said  in  my 
sermon  before  this  reverned  synod,  since  I  cannot  see  the  authority  of  the 
King  of  Zion  giving  warrant  to  confer  the  power  of  voting  in  the  election  of 
ministers  upon  heritors,  beyond  other  Christians." 

It  is  highly  probable  that  had  Mr.  Erskine  said  nothing 
against  the  act  of  the  Assembly  of  1732,  no  notice  would  have- 
been  taken  of  his  sermon  at  all.  Mistaken  notions  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Christ  lay  at  the  bottom  of  that  act.  It  gave  a 
})Ower  and  privilege  in  and  over  the  church  to  the  rich,  which 
as  rich  men  they  did  not  possess.  In  Christ  Jesus  there  are 
neither  rich  men  nor  poor  men.  To  be  possessed  of  countless- 
acres,  gives  the  owner  no  privileges  in  the  church  above  the 
poor  peasants  who  may  cultivate  those  acres.  Riches  and  titles- 
are  things  of  this  world  ;  but  Christ's  Kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world. 


ASSOCIATE    TRESBYTERY.  79 

A  Spirited  debate  followed  the  reply  of  Mr.  Ei'&kiiie.  This 
bein^  ended,  the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling,  by  a  majority  of 
six  votes,  declared  ]\Ir.  Erskine  censurable.  Against  this  sen- 
tence twelve  ministers  and  two  ruling  elders  protested.  Mr. 
Erskine  and  his  son-in-law,  who  had  not,  on  account  of  his 
relation  to  Mr.  Erskine,  been  permitted  to  vote,  protested,  and 
appealed  to  the  General  Assembly.  These  dissents  and  protests 
amounted  to  nothing ;  for  the  Synod  decided  at  once  that  j\Ir, 
Erskine  be  rebuked  at  their  bar  and  be  admonished  to  behave 
more  orderly  in  the  future. 

When  Mr.  Erskine  had  given  in  his  protest  he  retired;  con- 
sequently, the  rebuke  could  not,  at  that  time  be  administered. 
It  was  ordered  that  he  be  called  and  rebuked  on  the  following 
day.  Mr,  Erskine  not  appearing  on  the  next  day,  the  Synod 
ordered  that  he  be  called  before  their  bar  at  their  meeting  in 
April,  and  be  pul^licly  rebuked  and  admonished. 

The  Synod  met  at  Stirling  on  the  12th  of  April,  1733.  Seven 
of  the  twelve  ministers  who  had,  at  the  meeting  at  Perth,  in 
October,  1732,  protested,  being  present,  gave  in  their  reasons 
of  dissent.  Xo  effort  that  the  friends  of  Mr.  Erskine  could 
make  would  satisfy  the  Synod.  It  was  the  fixed  determination 
of  the  dominant  party  that  Mr.  Erskine  should  be  rebuked  and 
admonished,  unless  he  would  retract  what  he  had  said  in  his 
sermon  at  Perth.     This  he  w^ould  not  do. 

The  ]\Ioderator  called  Mr.  Erskine  in  order  to  be  rebuked  and 
admonished  ;  but  Mr.  Erskine,  instead  of  receiving  the  rebuke,, 
read  a  paper  in  Avhich  he  declared  his  firm  adherence  to  his 
former  protest,  and  that  he  was  not  conscious  of  having  done 
or  said  anything  meriting  a  rebuke. 

At  this  meeting  a  petition,  signed  by  fifteen  elders  of  the 
Session  of  the  Church  of  Stirling,  was  given  in  to  the  commit- 
tee of  bills,  but  this  committee  refused  to  bring  it  before  the- 
Synod.  This  shows  that  Mr.  Erskine  enjoyed  the  confidence 
of  his  own  people. 

The  Presbytery  of  Stirling  also  made  an  attempt  to  have  the 
matter  brought  to  a  favorable  issue,  but  failed. 

Xothing  more  could  be  done  until  the  meeting  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  This  court  convened  on  the  3d  of  May,  1733, 
at  Edinburgh.  On  the  14th  the  protest  of  Mr.  Erskine  came  up. 
for  consideration. 


80  HISTORY    OF    THE 

For  the  purpose  of  coercing  Mr.  Erskine  and  his  friends  in- 
to an  unmanly  submission,  the  Assembly  took  up  the  case 
springing  out  of  the  violent  settlement  of  Robert  Stark  over 
the  congregation  of  Kinross. 

Of  the  case  of  Mr.  Erskine  the  Assembly  made  quick  work. 
After  the  papers  were  read,  and  the  parties  heard,  it  was  de- 
cided that  Mr.  Erskine  had  vented  expressions  which  were  of- 
fensive to  the  Assembly  and  calculated  to  disturb  the  peace*  of 
the  church.  That  the  matter  might  be  brought  to  an  end,  it 
was  decided  that  ]Mr.  Erskine  be  immediately  rebuked  and  ad- 
monished by  the  Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly.  This 
sentence  was  executed,  and  the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling 
thanked  for  their  diligence  in  watching  over  and  guarding  the 
interest  and  prerogatives  of  the  Assembly. 

To  this  rebuke  Mr.  Erskine  could  not  submit  in  silence,  and 
he  so  declared.  At  the  same  time  he  presented  a  written  pro- 
test, to  which  William  AVilson,  Alexander  Moncrieff  and  James 
Fisher  adhered. 

The  Assembly  would  not  sutFer  this  paper  to  be  read,  but  in- 
sisted that  it  be  withdrawn.  This  Mr.  Erskine  positively  re- 
fused to  do,  and  having  laid  the  paper  on  the  table,  he  and  the 
other  brethren,  who  adhered  to  his  protest,  walked  out. 

It  is  strange  what  mighty  events  often  grow  out  of  appar- 
ently insignilicant  circumstances.  The  paper  laid  by  Mr.  Ers- 
kine on  the  table,  fell  by  accident,  on  the  floor,  and  there  it 
lay  unnoticed  for  some  time.  Mr.  Erskine  and  the  three 
brethren  who  favored  his  cause,  were  gone,  and  it  is  probable 
they  contemplated  making  no  further  eftbrt  before  the  church 
courts.  Certain  it  is,  they  at  this  time  had  not  the  most  dis- 
tant idea  of  separating  from  the  Church  of  Scotland.  This  was 
a  remedy  for  evils  that  had  as  yet  never  entered  their  minds. 

iN'ear  by  the  table  sat  James  jSTaesmith,  minister  of  Dalmenj- 
Mr.  Naesmith  took  the  paper  from  the  floor,  and  having  read 
it  over,  rose  from  his  seat  and  in  an  excited  tone  called  upon 
the  Moderator  to  suspend  the  business  of  the  Assembly  until 
he  would  read  the  treasonable  document.  Had  the  paper  con- 
tained a  threat  to  subvert  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  to  introduce  in  their  stead  the  doc- 
trines and  practices  of  the  heathen,  no  greater  stir  could  have 
been  made  by  the  Assembly.     Naesmith  and  the  whole  Assem- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  81 

bly  became  as  violently  excited  as  if  the  paper  had  offered  a 
plain,  positive  and  abusive  insult  to  each  and  every  member  of 
the  court.  Had  the  paper  contained  an  announcement  that 
the  British  Parliament  had  passed  a  law  depriving  the  people 
of  Scotland  of  their  civil  and  religious  rights,  and  consigning 
them  to  the  veriest  vassalage,  no  greater  uproar  could  have 
taken  place. 

That  the  reader  may  be  able  to  form  his  own  judgment  of 
the  paper,  we  shall  give  it  entire : 

"Although  I  have  a  very  dutiful  regard  to  the  judit^atories  of  the  church,  to 
■whom  I  owe  my  subjection  in  the  Lord  ;  yet,  in  respect  the  Assembly  have  found 
me  censurable,  and  tendered  a  rebuke  and  admonition  to  me,  for  things  I  con- 
ceive agreeable  unto,  and  founded  upon,  the  word  of  God  and  our  approven 
standards,  I  find  myself  obliged  to  protest  against  the  said  censure  as  importing 
that  I  have,  in  my  doctrines,  at  the  opening  of  the  Synod  at  Perth,  October  last, 
departed  from  the  word  of  God  and  the  aforesaid  standards  ;  and  that  I  shall 
have  liberty  to  preach  the  same  truths  of  God,  and  to  testify  against  the  same 
or  like  defections  of  this  wiurch  upon  all  proper  occasions.  And  I  do  hereby 
adhere  unto  the  testimony  I  have  formerly  emitted  against  the  act  of  Assembly 
of  1732,  whether  in  the  protest  entered  against  it  in  open  Assembly,  or  yet  in 
my  Synodical  sermon,  praying  this  protest  and  declarations  to  be  inserted  in  the 
records  of  the  Assembly,  and  that  I  may  be  allowed  extracts  thereof. 

"EBENEZER  ERSKINE. 

"  May  14,  1733." 

"  We,  undersubscribing  ministers,  dissenters  from  the  sentence  of  the  Synod 
of  Perth  and  Stirling,  do  hereby  adhere  to  the  above  protestation  and  declara- 
tion, containing  a  testimony  against  the  act  of  Assembly  of  1732,  and  asserting 
our  privilege  and  duty  to  testify  publicly  against  the  same  or  like  defections, 
upon  all  proper  occasions. 

"  WILLIAM  WILSON. 
'•  ALEX.  MONCRIEFF." 
"  I,  Mr.  James  Fisher,  Minister  of  Kinclaven,  appellant  against  the  sentence 
of  the  Synod  of  Perth,  in  this  question,  although  the  committee  of  bills  did  not 
think  fit  to  transmit  my  reasons  of  appeal,  find  myself  obliged  to  adhere  unto 
the  aforesaid  protestation  and  declaration. 

"  JAMES  FISHER." 

It  was  the  action  of  the  Assembly  respecting  this  protest 
and  declaration,  which  shortly  afterward  led  to  the  secession. 
This  protest  was  mainly  against  the  act  of  1732. 

It  is  important  that  the  reader  have  a  clear  and  distinct  idea 
of  the  peculiar  features  of  that  act.  It  provided  that  pastors 
for  vacant  congregations  be  chosen  by  the  heritors  and  elders. 
The  heritors  were  the  land-owners.  The  sum  and  substance  of 
the  act  was  that  before  any  individual  would  -be  allowed  to 
vote  in  the  selection  of  a  pastor  for  himself  and  family,  he 

7 


82  HISTORY    OF    THE 

must  be  a  landowner.  "We  need  not  say  that  such  a  Law  re- 
ceives no  sanction  fi-oni  the  word  of  God,  AVith  great  truth- 
fuhiess  and  propriety,  Mr.  Erskine  said,  in  his  Synodical  ser- 
mon, that,  "Whatever  church  authority  maybe  in  that  act, 
yet  it  wants  the  authority  of  the  Son  of  God.  All  ecclesiasti- 
cal authority  under  Heaven  is  derived  from  Him  ;  and  there- 
fore any  act  that  wants  His  authority,  has  no  authority  at  all." 
Such  were  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Erskine.  He  regarded  the 
Son  of  God  as  the  only  law-giver  in  the  church  ;  the  dominant 
part}'  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  thought  differently.  The}'  re- 
garded the  General  Assembly  and  commission  infallible  law- 
givers. The  student  of  the  Bible  is  left  to  j-udge  which  was 
right,  Mr.  Erskine  or  the  dominant  part}'  in  the  church. 

The  Assembly,  on  hearing  the  protest  of  the  Erskine  party 
read,  ordered  its  officer  to  go  in  search  of  the  offenders.  They 
were  not  found  until  mid-night.  They  had  supposed  that  the 
matter  was  ended,  and  the  probability  is  that  they  had  con- 
cluded to  give  the  Assembly  no  more  trouble.  iSTot  that  they 
were  sorry  for  anything  they  had  done  or  said,  or  that  they 
were  ready  to  abandon  any  of  their  former  positions,  but  hav- 
ing so  often  failed  to  accomplish  anything  by  protest,  they  had 
concluded  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  Avord  of  God  and  the  ap- 
proved standards  of  the  church. 

The  next  afternoon,  the  four  brethren  appeared  before  the 
Assembly.  A  committee  was  .appointed  to  hold  a  private  con- 
ference with  Mr.  Erskine  and  the  brethren  adhering  to  his  pro- 
test, for  the  purpose  of  persuading  him  and  them  to  withdraw 
their  protest.  This  they  would  not  consent  to  do.  The  com- 
mittee reported  accordingly.  The  Assembly,  on  hearing  the 
report  of  this  committee,  adopted  by  an  overwhelming  major- 
ity the  following  overture  : 

The  General  Assembly  ordains  that  the  four  brethren  appear  before  the  com- 
mission in  August  next,  and  then  show  their  sorrow  for  their  conduct  and  mis- 
behavior, in  offering  to  protest,  and  in  giving  in  to  this  Assembly  the  paper  by 
them  subscribed,  and  that  they  retract  the  same.  And  in  case  they  do  not  ap- 
pear before  the  said  commission,  in  August,  and  then  show  their  sorrow  and  re- 
tract, as  said  is,  the  commission  is  hereby  empowered  and  appointed  to  suspend 
the  said  brethren,  or  such  of  them  as  shall  not  obey,  froni  the  exercise  of  their 
ministry.  And  further,  in  case  the  said  brethren  shall  be  suspended  by  the  said 
commission,  and  that  they  shall  act  contrary  to  the  said  sentence  of  suspension, 
the  commission  is  hereby  empowered  and  appointed,  at  their  meeting  in  No- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  83 

vember.  or  any  subsequent  meeting,  to  proceed  to  a  higher  censure  against  the 
said  four  brethren,  or  such  of  them  as  shall  continue  to  offend  by  transgressing 
this  act.  And  the  General  Assembly  do  appoint  the  several  presbyteries  of 
■which  the  said  brethren  are  members  to  report  to  the  commission  in  August, 
and  subsequent  meetings  of  it.  their  conduct  and  behavior  with  respect  to  this 
Act. 

This  is  a  most  extraordinary  act  to  be  passed  by  a  Presby- 
terian court.  The  oftense  of  Ebenezer  Erskine,  "William  Wil- 
son, Alexander  Moncrieft'  and  James  Fisher  consisted  in  "of- 
fering to  protest"  against  anything  the  General  Assembly  might 
do  or  say  !  This  was  claiming  indirect]}',  if  not  directly,  in- 
fallibility for  the  Assembly.  Such  a  claim,  to  whatever  source 
it  may  trace  its  origin,  is  at  variance  with  every  principle  of 
Presbyterianism,  Protestantism  and  the  Bible. 

This  overture  had  been  prepared  by  the  committee  before 
they  reported  that  the  Erskine  party  would  not  withdraw  their 
protest.  This  shows  that  the  Assembly  was  determined  that 
its  edicts  should,  at  all  hazards,  be  obeyed.  "Ko  one  should  bo 
allowed  to  say  that  what  the  Assembly,  in  any  case,  might  do. 
or  say,  could  be  wrong. 

After  this  overture  had  been  adopted,  Mr.  Erskine  and  his^ 
three  adhering  brethren  attempted  to  read  a  paper  in  Avhicli 
they  stated  that  it  was  an  uncommon  mode  of  procedure  to  pass 
a  positive  sentence  upon  individuals  without  ofiering  them  the 
opportunity  to  defend   themselves.     Such  being  the  case,  they 
declare  that  "they  were  not  at  liberty  to  take  this  affair  to  am 
advisandum.^'     Xo  sooner  did  they  begin  to  read  this  paper  than 
the  officer  of  the  Assembly  was  ordered  to  remove  them  from 
the  house.     What  could  not  be  effected  by  brow-beating  a«d 
contempt,  the  Assembly  determined  should  be  accomplished  l>y 
a  sergeant-at-arms.     On  the  eighth  of  August  the  commission 
met  at  Edinburgh.     Mr.  Ebenezer  Erskine  and  his  three  ad- 
hering friends  appeared  before  the  bar  of  the  commission  with 
a  written  defense.     This  defense  they  were  told  they  would  not 
be  permitted  to  read,  since  the  commission  had  resolved  not  to 
admit  any  papers  which  were  offered.     After  some  time  was 
spent  in  discussing  the  propriety  and  reasonableness  of  the  ac- 
cused having  the  right  to  determine  whether  they  would  defend 
tliemselves  in  writing  or  viva  voce,  Messrs.  Wilson,  MoncriefF 
and  Fisher  were  ordered  to  retire,  and  the  commission  pro- 


84  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ceeded  to  interrogate  Mr.  Erskine  separately.  He  was  asked 
if  he  was  ready  to  profess  sorrow  for  offering  to  protest  against 
the  authority  of  the  Assembly,  and  to  retract  the  sentiments 
contained  in  his  protest.  To  this  Mr.  Erskine  replied,  in  sub- 
stance, tiiat  he  was  indeed  sorry  that  what  he  had  said  and 
done  had  been  interpreted  as  a  contempt  of  the  authority  of 
any  of  the  judicatories  of  the  church  ;  no  such  thing  being  de- 
signed by  him.  With  regard  to  retracting  his  protestation,  he 
said  tliat  he  and  his  other  brethren,  having  consulted  upon  this 
matter,  had  drawn  ud  deliberately  a  paper  which  contained  all 
he  had  to  say  on  that  point.  He  asked  that  he  might  read  this 
paper.  This  privilege  the  Moderator  refused  to  grant.  Mr. 
Erskine  was  asked  whether  the  paper  was  a  retraction  of  his 
protest.  To  this,  Mr.  Mr.  Erskine  replied:  "This  court  is 
abundantly  capable  to  judge,  upon  their  reading  the  paper/' 
The  commission  now  began  to  urge  Mr.  Erskine  to  retract  his 
protest  and  make  a  confession  of  his  sins.  Having  failed,  they 
ordered  him  to  be  removed. 

"When  Mr.  Erskine  had  retired,  a  debate  sprang  up  among 
the  members  of  the  commission  as  to  whether  the  paper  pre- 
sented by  Mr.  Erskine  should  be  read.  The  vote  was  taken, 
and  the  majority  decided  on  its  being  read.  Mr.  Erskine  was 
recalled  and  told  to  read  his  paper,  which  he  did  with  a  dignity 
that  commanded  the  respect  of  even  his  bitter  opponents. 
Mesers.  Fisher,  Wilson  and  Moncrieft'were  then  separately  called 
and  asked  the  same  question  that  had  ])een  propounded  to  Mr. 
Erskine.     Their  separate  replies  were  nearly  identical. 

The  object  the  commission  had  in  view,  in  calling  the  pro- 
testers before  them  separately,  w^as  to  break  the  ranks  of  the 
Dissenters.  This  they  did  not  accomplish.  The  Erskine  party 
were  contending  for  the  truth,  and  not  for  promotion.  They 
could  not  be  awed  into  measures  which  they  did  not  approve  ; 
neither  could  they  be  wheedled  into  making  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  sins  which  they  did  not  believe  they  had  committed. 
After  some  discussion,  the  vote  was  stated :  "  Suspend  the  four 
protesting  brethren  from  the  exercise  of  the  yninistry  and  all  parts 
thereof;  or,  Delay  this  affair  f  The  question  w^as  put  by  the 
Moderator  and  carried,  Suspend  ;  but  not  unanimously.  From 
this  decision  of  the  commission  three  ministers,  viz  :  Henry 
Lindsay,  Alexander  Wardropand  James McGarroch, and  Ruling 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  M5 

Elders  Colonel  John  Erskine,  Alexander  Brace  and  Albert 
Monro,  dissented,  Messrs.  Erskine,  Wilson,  Moncrieft'  and 
Fisher  protested  against  the  decision,  and  declared  that  they 
would  regard  it  as  null  and  void,  and  would  continue  to  exer- 
cise their  ministerial  functions  as  if  no  such  sentence  had  been 
inflicted  upon  them. 

It  is  proper  to  mention  that  so  great  was  the  interest  felt  in 
the  Erskine  party  that  petitions  in  their  behalf  were  presented 
to  the  commission  by  the  presbyteries  of  Stirling,  Dunblane 
and  Ellon,  and  by  the  magistrates,  town  councils  and  kirk  ses- 
sions of  Perth  and  Sterling.  In  this  connection,  it  may  also 
be  mentioned  that  a  very  respectable  minority  of  the  commis- 
sion were  in  favor  of  delaj'ing  the  matter  to  a  sul)sequent  meet- 
ing.    Hence  the  form  of  the  vote — Suspend;  or  Delrn/. 

The  commission  met  again  on  the  14th  of  November.  This 
meeting  of  the  commission  was  looked  forward  to  witli  the 
most  intense  anxiety  by  the  Avhole  of  Scotland.  It  was  known 
that  the  Assembly  had  peremptorily  commanded  the  commis- 
sion to  suspend  Mr.  Erskine  and  his  three  friends,  in  case  they 
did  not  retract  their  protest.  It  was  also  known  that  these  four 
ministers  had  been  suspended.  The  commission  was  further 
ordered  to  depose  them  from  the  gospel  ministry,  provided  thej^ 
did  not  submit  to  suspension.  It  was,  in  some  sections  of  the 
country,  a  well-known  fact  that  all  four  of  these  ministers  had, 
in  accordance  with  their  own  declarations,  continued  since  the 
sentence  of  suspension  was  pronounced,  to  exercise  their  min- 
isterial functions,  as  if  no  sentence  of  suspension  had  been  in- 
flicted. The  question  was  asked  in  every  circle,  "What  will 
the  commission  do  with  the  protesters?"  The  sympathies  of 
the  people  were  in  their  favor.  From  all  sections  of  the  sur- 
rounding country  the  people,  in  vast  numbers,  assembled  in 
Edinburgh.  Long  before  the  hour  of  meeting  the  Assembly 
house  was  full  to  its  utmost  capacity.  The  aisles  were  full,  and 
in  front  of  the  doors  an  immense  crowd  of  people  was  gathered. 
Before  the  members  of  the  commission  could  enter  the  Assem- 
bly house  the  magistrates  had  to  be  called  to  make  way  for 
them  through  the  crowd. 

The  commissioners  being  seated,  Mr.  Erskine  and  his  three 
friends,  in  compliance  with  the  summons  wdiich  they  had  re- 
ceived, presented  themselves  before  the  bar.     A  kind  of  stereo- 


86  HISTORY    OP    THE 

typed  mode  of  proceeding  in  this  matter,  from  its  commence- 
ment, was  to  appoint  a  committee  to  converse  with  the  protest- 
ers. Agatn  this  was  done.  Tlie  committee  having  conversed 
with  Mr.  Erskine  and  his  three  brethren,  and  finding  them 
still  unwilling  to  retract  their  protest,  so  reported  to  the  com- 
mission. The  protesters  were  now  asked  if  they  had  "  obeyed 
the  sentence  of  the  commission  in  August  last^  suspending  them  from 
the  exercise  of  their  ministry  \^  Thev  all  replied  that  "  they  had 
notr 

According  to  the  instructions  given  by  the  General  Assembl}', 
the  commission  had  nothing  more  to  do  in  the  case,  except  de- 
pose the  protesting  ministers  from  the  gospel  ministry.  This 
was  what  a  number  of  the  commission  were  anxious  to  do  ; 
but  there  were  others  who  did  not  desire  tci  see  these  four  good 
men  ruthlessly  thrnst  out  of  the  church.  The  former  were  in 
favor  of  proceeding  at  once  to  settle  the  matter.  The  latter 
were  in  favor  of  delaying  it  until  March.  The  one  party  ar- 
gued that  the  instructions  of  the  Assembly  made  it  binding 
upon  the  connuission  to  proceed  at  once  to  intiict  the  higher 
censure  upon  the  sus.pended  ministers  ;  while  the  other  party 
argued  that  the  matter  might  be  delayed  until  March.  That 
this  point  might  be  determined,  a  vote  was  stated  :  "  Proceed 
immediately  to  infiict  a  higher  censure  upon  the  four  suspended 
ministers  ;  or^  Delay  the  same  till  March.''  It  was  found,  on 
counting  tlie  votes,  that  the  parties  were  equally  divided.  Mr. 
John  Gowdie,  the  Moderator,  in  that  case  being  entitled  to  a 
vote,  cast  it  in  favor  of  proceeding  at  once  to  depose  the  sus- 
pended ministers.  This  was  the  vote  that  thrust  Ebenezer 
Erskine,  William  Wilson,  Alexander  Moncrietf  and  James 
Fisher  out  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  It  was  carried  b}^  a 
single  vote,  and  that  the  vote  of  the  Moderator. 

Before  the  sentence  was  pronounced,  another  committee  was 
appointed  to  converse  with  the  suspended  ministers.  Iso  ami- 
cable adjustment  being  effected,  the  commission  agreed  that 
the  following  should  be  the  state  of  the  question ;  "  Loose  the 
relation  of  the  said  four  ministers  to  their  several  charges,  and.  de- 
clare them  no  longer  ministers  of  this  chnrch,  and  j^rohibit  cdl  -min- 
isters of  this  church  to  employ  them  in  any  ministericd  function  ; 
or,  Depose  them  simpliciter?" 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  87 

The  question  was  thus  stated  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a 
majority.  A  very  considerable  number  of  the  commission  was 
opposed  to  voting  upon  the  question  at  all,  and  Avere  decidedly 
opposed  to  inflicting  a  censure  of  any  kind  upon  the  suspended 
ministers.  These  would  neither  vote  "  Loose,"  nor  "  Depose." 
The  roll  being  called,  it  was  found  that  a  decided  majority  of 
those  voting  were  in  favor  of  inflicting  the  higher  censure  of 
the  church  upon  the  four  suspended  ministers. 

The  commission  then  proceeded  to  pass  a  formal  sentence 
upon  the  protesters  in  the  following  language  : 

The  commission  of  the  General  Assembly  did.  and  hereby  do  loose  the  relation 
of  Mr.  Ebenezer  Erskine.  minister  at  Stirling  ;  Mr.  William  Wilson,  minister  at 
Perth  ;  Mr.  Alexander  Moncrieff,  minister  at  Abernethy  ;  and  Mr.  James  Fishei-, 
minister  at  Kinclaven,  to  their  said  respective  charges  ;  and  do  declare  them  no 
longer  ministers  of  this  church ;  and  do  hereby  prohibit  all  ministers  of  this  church 
to  employ  them,  or  any  of  them,  in  any  ministerial  function!  And  the  commission 
do  declare  the  churches  of  the  said  Mr.  Erskine,  Mr.  Wilson,  Mr.  Moncrieff  and 
Mr.  Fisher  vacant  from  and  after  the  date  of  this  sentence  ;  and  appoint  that 
letters  from  the  Moderator,  and  extracts  from  this  sentence,  be  sent  to  the  sev- 
eral Presbyteries  within  whose  bounds  the  said  ministers  have  had  their  charges, 
appointing  them,  as  they  are  hereby  appointed,  to  cause  intimate  this  sentence 
in  the  foresaid  several  churches,  now  declared  vacant,  any  time  betwixt  and  the 
first  of  January  next ;  and  also  that  notice  of  this  sentence  be  sent,  by  letters 
from  the  Moderator  of  this  commission  to  the  magistrates  of  Perth  and  Stirling- 
to  the  sheriff-principal  of  Perth  and  bailie  of  the  regality  of  Abei-nethy. 

.  Tins  sentence  sounds  very  much  like  a  proclamation  issued 
by  a  king  for  the  capture  and  execution  of  a  band  of  highway 
robbers.  We  must  remember  that  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland  and  its  commission  claimed  for  them- 
selves supreme  authorit}-  over  all  the  members  of  the  Xa- 
tional  Church.  The  principles  of  Republicanism  were  not  un- 
derstood at  that  time.  What,  the  reader  may  be  ready  to  ask, 
had  the  sheriff-principal  of  Perth  and  bailie  of  the  regality  of 
Abernethy  to  do  with  this  matter  ?  We  answer,  nothing,  ac- 
cording to  the  word  of  God  and  principles  of  pure  Presbyte- 
rianism.  Christ's  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ;  but  this  was 
not  generally  known  in  Scotland  at  the  time  of  the  secession. 
Well  might  Ebenezer  Erskine  say  that  "  mistaken  notions  of 
Christ's  Kingdom  la}^  at  the  bottom  of  many  errors." 

We  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  action  of  the  commission 
3net  the  approbation  of  an  overwhelming  majorit}'  in  the  Xa- 
tioual  Church. 


88  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Tliere  were,  iit  tluit  time,  only  iifteen  synods  in"  Scotland. 
B'rom  seven  of  these  synods  petitions  in  favor  of  the  Erskine 
jDarty  were  sent  to  the  commission.  Six  of  tliese  petitions  en- 
treated that  the  commission  w^ould  delay  proceeding  to  inflict 
the  higher  censure,  and  one  plead  that  the  suspended  ministers 
might  he  dealt  with  tenderly.  The  synods  sending  up  these 
petitions  were,  Angus  and  Mearns,  Perth  and  Stirling,  Dum- 
fries, Moray,  Ross,  Galloway  and  Fife.  It  is  certain,  had  the 
whole  matter,  from  heginning  to  end,  heen  left  to  a  popular 
vote,  either  of  the  ministers  or  people,  or  of  hoth  together, 
the  protesters  would  _liave  been  cleared  by  a  tremendous  ma- 
jority. 

It  may  be  asked,  liow  did  it  happen  that  in  the  General  As- 
sembly and  commission  there  always  was  a  majority  against 
them  ?  We  reply,  because  of  the  ecclesiastical  trickery  which 
was  practiced  in  selecting  the  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. Those  persons  were,  by  a  kind  of  ecclesiastical  intrigue, 
chosen  as  members  of  the  Assembly,  who,  it  was  known, 
w^ould  favor  the  very  schemes  which  Mr.  Erskine  opposed. 
Against  Mr.  Erskine,  either  as  a  man  or  a  ministei-,  there  %vas 
no  op[)Osition.  No  charge  of  immorality  was  ever  brought 
against  him  or  his  three  coadjutors,  and  it  was  not  so  much  as 
said  that  his  Perth  sermon  w^as  not  scrii)tural.  The  objection 
to  it  was  that  it  was  scriptural,  but  it  would  not  do  to  advance 
this  idea.  Ebenezer  Erskine  and  his  three  brethren  were  ex- 
communicated from  the  Church  of  Scotland  for  a  like  reason 
that  John  the  Baptist  was  beheaded. 

Before  leaving  Edinburgh,  the  four  excommunicated  minis- 
ters agreed  to  meet  at  Gairney  Bridge  on  the  5th  of  December 
following.  This  was  a  small  village  about  three  miles  south  of 
Kinross.  At  the  appointed  time  and  place,  all  four  of  them  met. 
The  first  day  was  "  spent  in  prayer,  humiliation  and  conference 
together  concerning  the  present  providence  of  God  concerning 
them."  They  Avere  bold  and  fearless  men,  but  not  rash  men. 
It  was  agreed  that  they  should  meet  again  on  the  following 
day.  Ealph  Erskine  and  Thomas  Mair  met  with  them  on  both 
days,  and  took  part  with  them  both  in  their  prayers  and  con- 
ferences. On  the  following  day  they  met,  and  after  prayer- 
fully considering  the  matter  in  all  its  probable  results,  both  for 
time  and  eternity,  this  question  was  put :  "  Constitute  presently 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  89 

into  a  presbytery  or  not?'''  The  vote  to  constitute  was  unani- 
mous. At  two  o'clock  on  the  6th  of  December,  1733,  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  was  reguhirly  constituted  by  prayer  by  the 
Rev.  Ebenezer  Erskine.  After  prayer,  ]Mr.  Erskine  was  chosen 
moderator,  and  James  Fisher,  clerk. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  one  of  the 
religious  denominations  which  entered  into  the  union  which 
formed  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 

Xothing  can  be  more  evident  that  although  those  who  or- 
ganized the  Associate  Presbyteiy  were  called  Seceders,  thej-  did 
not  secede,  but  were,  by  high-handed  ecclesiastical  tj-rrany, 
thrust  out  of  the  church  of  their  fathers.  For  the  Church  of 
Scotland  they  never  lost  any  of  their  first  love  ;  but  to  submit 
([uietly  to  the  usurpation  of  the  corrupt  party  in  that  church, 
was  what  they  could  not  do.  The  sequel  will  show  that  in  the 
providence  of  God,  no  door  was  opened  by  which  they,  in  con- 
sistency with  their  convictions  of  truth  and  right,  could  return 
to  the  mother  church,  but  they  continued  to  labor  diligently 
and  profitably  in  the  organization  which  necessity  forced  them 
to  form.  Their  names  will  go  down  to  the  latest  generation 
of  men  as  Seceders,  and  probabl}-  all  their  descendants  will 
bear  the  name  ;  but  they  did  not  secede. 


so  HISTORY    OP    THE 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EEFORMED  PRESBYTERIANS— Called  by  different  Names  :  Covenanters, 
Cameronians,  Society  People,  and  Strict  Presbyterians — Covenanters  not  Dis- 
tinctive— The  Church  of  Scotland  a  Covenanting  Church — Frequently  en- 
tered into  Covenant  with  God — Fluctuations  in  the  Church  of  Scotland — 
First  Reformation — Culdees  Suppressed — Moral  Darkness — Lollards  of  Kyle 
— First  Confession  of  Faith — National  Covenant — Presbyterianism  Estab- 
lished by  Act  of  Parliament — Elizabeth  Died — James  VI.  Becomes  King — 
English  Dissenters — Millenary  Petition — Hampton  Court — James  Abuses  the 
Puritans — Character  of  James — Westminster  Assembly — Confession  of  Faith 
Ratified  by  the  Church  of  Scotland — Charles  I.  Put  to  Death — Charles  II. 
Crowned — Cromwell  Dies — Charles  II.  Brought  Back — "  Killing  Period  "-  - 
Origin  of  Reformed  Presbyterians — Parties  in  the  Church  of  Scotland — 
Charles  Exhumes  the  Bones  of  Cromwell,  Ireton,  and  Bradshaw — Appre- 
hends the  Marquis  of  Argyle — Argyle  Put  to  Death — Guthrie  Executed — 
Rescissory  Act  Passed — Drinking  Parliament — Three  Thousand  Ministers 
Ejected — Twenty  Thousand  Presbyterians  put  to  Death — Cameronians  would 
make  no  Compromise — Rise  of  the  Strict  Presbyterians,  1(57!) — Order  to  Ap- 
prehend Welsh.  Cameron.  Douglass  and  Kid — Murder  of  Archbishop  Sharp — 
Persecutions  on  Account  of  Robert  Hamilton — Rutherglen  Declaration 
Battle  of  Drumclog — Bothwell  Bridge — Queensferry  Paper — The  Three  Pres- 
byterian Ministers,  Cameron.  Cargill  and  Douglass — Cameron  Killed.  1680-  - 
Cargill  Executed,  1681 — Society  People  send  Young  Men  to  Holland  to  Re 
ceive  Ordination — Alexander  Peden.  James  Renwick,  Alexander  Shields, 
Thomas  Boyd,  and  David  Houston — Peden's  Body  Exhumed  and  Insulted — 
Renwick,  the  Last  of  the  Scotch  Martyrs — Cameronian  Principles — Prince 
of  Orange — Linning.  Boyd,  and  Shields  Join  the  National  Church — Houston 
without  Influence — Religious  Instruction  among  the  Society  People-First 

•      Meeting  of  the  Society. 

As  stated  in  the  previous  chapter,  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  is  the  result  of  a  union  which  was  formed  between  the 
Associate  and  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  churches  in  Amer- 
ica. The  members  of  the  Associate  Church  were  generally 
called  Seceders,  while  those  of  the  latter  were  always  spoken  of 
as  Covenanters.  Both  had  their  origin  in  Scotland,  and  Avith 
some  minor  exceptions  were,  from  the  beginning,  identical  in 
all  their  religious  beliefs  and  practices. 

The  history  of  the  Associate  Church  has  been  briefly  nar- 
rated. It  is  our  purpose,  in  the  iiresent  chapter,  to  give  a  sim- 
ilar outline  of  the  history  of  tlie  Reformed  Presbj'terians. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  91 

In  ecclesiastical  history,  and  especially  in  the  histoiy  of  Scot- 
land, the  Reformed  Presbyterians  are  called  by  a  number  of 
names.  Generall}^  they  are  called  "  Covenanters,"  sometimes 
they  are  designated  as  "  Cameronians,"  and  frequently  they  are 
mentioned  as  "  Society  People."  Like  the  Associate  Presbyte- 
rians, the}'  were  an  offshoot  from  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Xot 
that  they  departed  from  any  of  the  principles  or  practices 
set  forth  in  the  standards  of  that  church.  On  the  contrary, 
Avhile  the  multitude  followed  worldl}'  devices,  they  clung,  with 
true  and  unflinching  devotion,  to  the  high  reformation  attain- 
ments which  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  made  in  its  palmiest 
days.  Xever  have  the3'  been  charged  with  a  want  of  devotion 
to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland.  For 
it  they  were  willing  to  die.  For  it  hundreds  of  them  did  die. 
It  was  dearer  to  them  than  life.  Xot  that  they  had  a  blind, 
superstitious  devotion  to  these  formulas  of  doctrine.  Their 
faith  Avas  founded  upon  correct,  Bible  knowledge.  It  was  not 
a  stupid  credence  which  believes  everything  without  being  able 
to  give  a  reason  for  anything. 

The  appellation  Covenanter  is  not  sufhciently  distinctive  to 
■enable  us  to  distinguish  the  Reformed  Presbyterians  from  the 
Ils'ational  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland.  Ever  since  the  days 
of  the  Reformation,  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  has 
been  a  covenanting  church.  On  many  occasions  did  the  ministers 
and  pt'Dple  enter  into  solemn  engagements  "that  by  the  grace  of 
God  they  would  strive,  with  their  whole  power,  substance  and 
very  lives,  to  maintain,  set  forward  and  establish  the  most 
blessed  word  of  God  and  his  congregations."  The  First  Cov- 
enant was  subscribed  at  Edinburgh,  on  the  3d  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1357.  This  was  during  the  days  of  John  Knox.  At 
Perth,  on  the  31st  of  Ma}',  1559,  the  Second  Covenant  was  sub- 
scribed, in  the  name  of  the  whole  congregation,  by  the  Earls  of 
Argyle  and  Glencairn,  and  by  Lords  Stewart,  Boyd  and  Ochil- 
tree, and  by  Matthew  Campbell  of  Terringland. 

At  various  other  times,  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland 
entered  publicly  into  covenant  with  God.  This  being  the  case, 
Reformed  Presbyterians  are  not  accurately  distinguished  when 
they  are  called  Covenanters,  without  we  take  into  considera- 
tion the  fact  that  of  all  others,  they  most  rigidly  adhered  to 
their  covenanted  vows. 


92  HISTORY    OF    THE 

In  order  tliat  we  may  discover  tlie  rise  of  the  Reformed 
l^resbjterian  churcli,  it  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  trace  the 
various  Huctuations,  which,  at  difierent  periods,  took  place  in 
the  Church  of  Scotland, 

The  first  reformation  from  Popery  hegan  in  Scotland  about 
the  year  1490.  The  Culdees  had  been  suppressed,  and  for  two 
hundred  years  a  moral  night  brooded  over  the  land.  "  Half 
the  wealth  of  the  nation  was  in  the  possession  of  a  few  indi- 
viduals who  lived  in  pomp  and  splendor,  while  the  multitude 
of  the  people  were  miserably  ])Oor  and  degradedly  ignorant. 
The  revenues  of  the  church  were  bestowed  upon  dice-players, 
strolling  bards  and  the  illegitimate  sons  of  the  bishops.  Of  re- 
ligion scarcely  the  name  remained.  The  highest  dignitaries 
in  the  church  never  discharged  any  of  its  public  or  private 
duties,  and  the  lives  of  the  inferior  clergy  were  brutally  vile." 

Like  the  pleasant  rays  of  a  morning  sun,  after  a  long  and 
gloomy  night,  a  faint  light,  in  1490,  began  to  appear  in  the 
western  districts  of  Kyle,  Carrick  and  Cunningham.  The 
demons  of  darkness  were  startled  from  their  murky  laiis  and  a 
desperate  rush  was  made  to  extinguish  its  mellow  rays.  The 
Lollards  were  dragged  before  the  Great  Council,  but  a  kind 
Providence  interfered  in  their  behalf.  The  enraged  ])ishops 
were  disconcerted  in  theii-  nefarious  plans,  and  the  Lollards 
were  dismissed  with  a  gentle  admonition  "  to  beware  of  new 
doctrines  and  to  content  themselves  with  the  faith  of  the 
church."'" 

This  first  reformation,  began  by  the  Lollards,  was  brought 
to  a  happy  issue  about  the  year  1560.  In  that  year  the  First 
Confession  of  Faith  was  adopted  and  the  reformation  estab- 
lished. The  main  instrument  chosen  by  God  for  lu'inging 
about  this  wonderful  change  in  the  spiritual  att'airs  of  Scotland 
was  John  Ivnox. 

The  Church  of  Scotland,  uow  established  on  a  Scripture 
basis,  continued  to  grow.  The  social  and  intellectual  condi- 
tion of  the  masses  was  greatly  improved.  Li  the  year  1580,  a 
national  Covenant  was  formed  for  the  support  of  the  reforma- 
tion. This  instrument  was  subscribed  by  King  James  VI.  and 
his  household.  In  the  following  year  it  was  subscribed  by  the 
people  of  Scotland  generally,  and  again  in  1590. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  '       93 

111  1592,  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government  was,  by 
an  Act  of  the  Parliament,  established  in  Scotland.  At  the 
same  time  the  Parliament  ratilied  some  of  the  leading  propo- 
sitions of  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline. 

During  a  period  of  one  hundred  years  the  reformation  had 
been  slowly  but  surely  advancing  in  Scotland.  The  Parlia- 
mentary enactment  of  1592  has  ever  since  been  looked  upon  as 
The  Great  Charter  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  The  strug- 
gle had  been  great.  Queen  Mary  and  many  of  the  nobles 
placed  themselves  in  deadly  opposition  to  the  reformation,  and 
by  every  means  within  their  reach  tliwarted,  as  far  as  they 
could,  its  progress.  James  VI.,  her  son  and  successor,  was,  ■ 
notwithstanding  his  high  pretensions,  never  in  full  sj'mpath}- 
witli  Presbyterianism.  His  predilections  were  all  in  favor  of 
Prelacy  as  being  more  favorable  to  monarchy. 

In  March,  1603,  Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  died,  and 
James  VI.,  of  Scotland,  ascended  the  throne  of  England  with 
the  title  of  James  I.  Prelacy  had  been  established  in  England 
by  Henry  VIIL,  but  a  very  large  and  inHuential  number  of  the 
English  people  were  Dissenters.  These  Dissenters  arc  generall}' 
known  in  ecclesiastical  history  as  Puritans. 

When  James  arrived  in  London,  he  was  met  by  a  number  of 
the  Puritan  ministers  who  laid  before  him  what  is  called  the 
Uillenari/  Petition.  This  name  was  given  it  because  in  the 
preamble  the  petitioners  state  that  they,  "  to  the  number  of 
more  than  a  thousand  ministers,  groan  under  the  burden  of 
human  rites  and  ceremonies."  This  petition  was,  however, 
signed  by  only  seven  hundred  and  fifty  ministers.  These  were 
from  only  twenty-five  counties,  which  shows  that  the  state- 
ment in  the  petition  was  true.  It  also  shows  that  the  people 
of  England  were  greatly  divided  concerning  church  rites  and 
ceremonies. 

James  was  exceedingly  vain  and  conceited.  Anxious  to 
make  a  display  of  his  theological  learning,  he  appointed  a  con- 
ference between  the  Puritans  and  Prelatists  at  Hampton  Court. 
The  debate  was  to  take  place  in  the  presence  of  the  King,  who 
was  to  be  judge. 

In  this  famous  Hampton  Court  conference,  James  plainly 
showed  that  he  was  not  disposed  to  deal  fairly.  The  Puritans 
were  treated  with  contempt,  and  finally  he  threatened  "to 


94  HISTORY    OF    THE 

make  them  conform,  or  he  would  harrie  them  out  of  the  land^ 
or  else  do  worse."  This  was  a  sad  speech  for  James.  If  re- 
sulted in  the  beheading  of  his  son  Charles  and  contributed  to 
the  final  overthrow  of  the  race  of  Stuarts. 

On  the  last  day  of  March,  the  intelligence  of  the  death  of 
Elizabeth  reached  Scotland.  James  was  immediately  pro- 
claimed King  of  Scotland,  England,  France  and  Ireland.  On 
the  following  Sabbath,  in  the  High  Church  of  Edinburgh,  he, 
in  presence  of  the  assembled  people,  declared  his  approbation 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  The  greater  part  of  the  people  had, 
before  this,  ceased  to  have  any  confidence  in  the  King's  decla- 
rations. He  had  already  proven,  by  his  acts,  that  he  was  an 
unscrupulous  villain  who  would  solemnly  engage  to  do  one 
thing  and  deliberately  do  the  very  opposite. 

By  the  unrighteous  acts  of  James  I.  and  his  successor  Charles 
I.  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  greatly  disturbed.  A  strenuous 
etibrt  was  made  by  both  to  root  out  rresbyterianism,and  they 
succeeded  in  i:)art. 

The  Puritans  of  England,  who,  in  the  days  of  James  I.,  were 
"  groaning  under  the  burden  of  human  rites  and  ceremonies," 
determined,  during  the  reign  of  Charles  I.,  to  free  themselves 
of  this  burden.  Charles  was  rightly  regarded  as  being  favora- 
bl}'  inclined  to  Popery, 

On  the  12th  of  June,  1643,  the  English  Parliament  passed 
an  ordinance  calling  an  assembly  of  "  learned  and  Godly  di- 
vines." This  was  what  is  known  as  the  "Westminster  Assem- 
bly. The}"^  met,  in  accordance  with  the  call,  on  the  1st  day  of 
July,  lt)43.  During  their  deliberations  they  framed  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  Shorter  and  the  Larger 
Catechisms.  To  this  Assembly  the  Scotch  sent  six  commis- 
sioners. 

On  the  4th  of  August,  1647,  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  met  and  ratified  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion. On  the  30th  of  January,  1649,  Charles  I.  was  beheaded,, 
and  in  a  short  time  Oliver  Cromwell  made  himself  master  of 
England. 

The  Scotch  were  opposed  to  the  execution  of  Charles  I.,  and 
immediately  on  his  death  proclaimed  his  son  Charles  II., King; 
and  on  the  1st  of  January,  1651,  crowned  him  at  Scone.  The 
Duke  of  Argyle,  Archibald  Campbell,  placed  the  crown  on  his 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  95- 

head.  Charles  II.,  before  being  crowned,  subscribed  the  Cove- 
nant. For  nine  years  he  was  forced  to  live  in  exile — so  long- 
as  Cromwell  had  the  control  of  the  government.  On  the  3d  of 
September,  1G58,  Cromwell  died,  leaving  his  son  Richard  to 
succeed  him.  Richard  wanted  his  father's  capacity,  and  he 
was  totally  without  his  ambition. 

During  the  period  of  Cromwell's  Commonwealth,  the  Scotch 
were  greatly  disturbed.  In  fact,  the  nation  was  reduced  to 
subjection  ;  but,  strange  to  say,  in  no  period  of  the  history  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  was  religion  in  a  more  flourishing 
condition. 

After  the  death  of  Cromwell,  the  English  people,  tired  of  the 
unsettled  state  of  aflairs,  began  to  desire  a  king.  Charles  was 
brought  back  and  placed  on  the  throne  of  his  ancestors,  with 
the  title  of  Charles  II.  This  event  took  place  on  the  29th  of 
May,  1660. 

Although  the  Scotch  had  been  the  constant  friends  of  Charles 
II.  during  his  exile,  this  was  the  beginning  of  sufferings  to  Scot- 
land unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  any  people.  The  period  ex- 
tending from  the  crowning  of  Charles  II.,  in  1660,  to  the  Revo- 
lution of  1688,  is,  with  eminent  propriety,  called  the  "  Killing^ 
Time." 

It  was  during  this  period  that  the  strict  Covenanters,  or  Re- 
tbrmed  Presbyterians,  became  visible  to  the  world. 

The  Scotch  acted  rashly  in  proclaiming  Charles  II.  King,  and 
they  seem  to  have  been  deluded,  in  that  they  disapproved  of 
the  execution  of  Charles  I.  He  deserved  death  by  law,  and  so 
did  his  father,  James  I. 

Some  nations  trace  their  greatness  to  their  sovereigns ;  but 
England  and  Scotland  have  attained  a  truly  enviable  greatness 
by  opposing  their  sovereigns.  The  favorite  expression  of  James 
I.  was :  "  ]^o  bishop,  no  king,"  and  all  his  descendants  were 
ready  to  say  anything  in  order  to  be  able  to  tyranize  over  the 
people. 

During  the  time  of  Charles  I.  the  people  of  Scotland  became 
divided.  Three  parties,  bitterly  opposed  to  each  other,  sprung 
into  existence.  These  were :  First,  the  strict  I*resbyterians,  or 
Covenanters  ;  second,  the  Hamiltonian  partj^ ;  and  third,  the 
Royalists.  The  Hamiltonian  party  had  turned  traitor  to  the 
national  cause,  and  secretly  concluded  a  treaty  with  the  King. 


9fi  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  Hamiltonians  and  Royalists,  since  the  ultimate  object 
aimed  at  by  both  was  the  same,  readily  united.  This  threw 
the  strict  Presl)yterian  party  in  the  minority.  This  was  one  of 
the  greatest  calamities  Avhich  ever  betel  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Scotland.  It  opened  the  door  for  errors  in  doctrine,  and 
paved  the  way  for  the  introduction  of  Prelacy. 

AVhen  Charles  II.  ascended  the  throne  of  England,  made  va- 
cant by  the  execution  of  his  father,  he  found  the  Church  of 
Scotland  in  a  proper  condition  to  become  an  easy  prey  to  its 
enemies.  To  show  his  resentment  to  the  Puritans,  he  had  the 
bones  of  Cromwell,  Ireton  and  Bradshaw  exhumed,  and,  as  if 
still  animated  with  life,  hanged  upon  a  felon's  gallows  aridthen 
bnried  l^eneath  it. 

Strong  filial  affection  may  be  urged  as  a  palliation  for  thus 
insulting  the  dead  bodies  of  men  who  were  his  superiors  in 
every  respect,  and  whom  he  feared  while  living ;  but  no  exten- 
uation can  be  offered  in  favor  of  his  ponduct  toward  the  Mar- 
(Uiis  of  Argyle.  This  nobleman  had  placed  the  crown  upon  the 
head  of  Charles  at  Scone,  soon  after  the  death  of  his  father. 

Immediately  after  the  restoration  of  Charles  11. ,  Argyle  was 
earnestly  solicited  by  many  of  the  strict  Presbyterian  party  to 
go  to  London  and  hold  a  conference  with  the  King  in  behalf 
of  the  church.  His  personal  regard  for  the  King  readily  in- 
duced him  to  undertake  the  mission.  Argyle,  suspecting  no 
danger,  set  out  on  his  journey.  He  reached  London  on  the  8th 
of  July,  only  one  month  after  the  return  of  the  King,  and  im- 
mediately repaired  to  AYhitehall  to  salute  his  sovereign,  l^o 
sooner,  however,  had  the  King  heard  of  his  arrival,  than  he 
ordered  Sir  William  Flemming  to  apprehend  him  and  convey 
him  to  the  tower.  The  ungrateful  King  caused  him  to  be  tried 
for  treason,  because  he  had  entered  into  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  with  England.  On  the  27th  of  May,  1661,  the  Chris- 
tian nobleman's  head  was  severed  from  his  body  and  fixed  upon 
the  toll-booth  of  Edinburgh.  Orders  were,  in  a  short  time, 
given  to  imprison  Sir  James  Stuart,  Sir  John  Chiesley  and  Sir 
Archibald  Johnston. 

Charles,  notwithstanding  his  former  solemn  vows  and  fair 
promises,  showed  in  no  ambiguoas  way,  Ijy  this  act,  that  he 
hated  Presbyterians  and  Presbyterianism,  and  the  more  strict 
the  order  the  more  deadly  his  hatred  toward  it.     Hence  the 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  9T 

Protesters  were  more  obnoxious  to  this  ungrateful  tyrant  than 
any  others.  In  order  that  he  might  break  the  unit}'  of  these 
faithful  servants  of  God,  the  Rev.  James  Guthrie  was  indictep 
for  high  treason,  condemned  and  executed ;  and  that  terror 
might  be  spread  among  the  ranks  of  the  Protestors,  his  head 
was  iixed  on  the  netherbow  of  the  city  of  Edinburgh,  his  es- 
tate confiscated,  and  his  arms  torn  down. 

In  1661,  a  Scotch  Parliament  was  called  by  the  King.  This 
Parliament,  during  the  years  1661  and  1662,  removed,  as  far 
as  was  w^ithin  the  power  of  man,  all  that  v>'as  near  and  dear  to 
the  strict  Presbyterians  of  Scotland.  The  rescissory  act  was 
passed,  and  all  parliamentary  acts  favoring  the  work  of  the 
Peformation  of  religion  were  repealed. 

So  sweeping  was  this  rescissory  act,  that  it  removed  ever}' 
landmark  in  church  and  state.  The  blow  was  aimed  at  the 
Presbyterian  church,  but  it  struck  everything  that  freemen 
held  dear.  The  pillars  upon  w^hich  rests  civil  society  were  dis- 
placed, and  the  fair  fabric  tottered  and  fell. 

This  Parliament  was  stigmatized  as  the  "  Drinking  Parlia- 
ment." The  members  spent  the  night  in  drunken  revels,  and 
went  reeling  and  staggering  to  the  Parliament,  where  they 
made  enactments  unworthy  of  any  people  possessed  of  even  the 
lowest  degree  of  civilization. 

During  the  year  1662  and  1663  near  three  thousand  faithful 
ministers  in  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland  were  ejected  from 
their  congregations  because  they  would  not  accept  a  form  of 
church  government  which  they  regarded  as  unscriptural,  and 
conform  to  a  mode  of  worship  papal  in  its  origin  and  papal  in 
all  its  tendencies.  Among  these  ejected  ministers  were  Donald 
Cargill,  one  of  the  staunch  advocates  of  Peformed  Presbyterian 
j)rinciples,  and  Henry  Erskine,  the  father  of  Ebenezer  Ers- 
kine,  the  leader  in  the  session  of  1733. 

During  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  and  his  brother  James  II., 
twenty  thousand  persons  were  put  to  death  because  they  were 
Presbyterians  ;  many  were  subjected  to  the  boot,  the  thumbkin 
and  the  fire-match,  while  others  were  banished  to  America  and 
sold  as  slaves,  and  from  others  the  most  exorbitant  fines  were 
extorted. 


08  HISTORY    OF    THE 

These  were  truly  times  that  tried  men's  souls.  Many  con- 
formed, and  others  accepted  of  indulgences,  and  by  the  multi- 
tude the  standard  of  Presbyterianism  was  lowered. 

A  few  would  make  no  compromise  with  the  dominant  party. 
These  formed  the  germ  from  which,  in  due  time,  grew  the  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Church. 

As  it  is  difficult  to  state  with  absolute  precision  the  exact 
moment  that  the  cloud  which  is  to  water  the  earth  and  cause 
it  to  bring  forth  bread  for  the  eater  and  seed  for  the  sower  be- 
gins to  form,  so  it  is  difficult  to  specify  the  precise  day  wdien 
Reformed  Presbyterian  principles  began  first  to  assume  a  dis- 
tinctive form.  JSTotwithstanding  this,  we  feel  safe  in  naming 
the  year  1679  as  the  period  when  the  germ  from  which  they 
sprang  beiran  to  show  visible  signs  of  life.  This  was  one  of 
the  most  eventful  years  in  the  history  of  Scotland.  Its  records 
mio-ht,  with  eminent  propriety,  be  written  in  blood.  A  reward 
was  offisred  for  the  apprehension  of  any  non-conforming  min- 
isters, and  an  order  was  issued  to  take  John  Welsh,  Richard 
Cameron,  Thomas  Douglass  and  John  Kid,  dead  or  alive.  The 
order  provided  that  "in  case  these  men  shall  resist  they  shall 
be  pursued  to  death,  and  the  officer  or  soldier  who  shall  kill 
them  shall  not  be  called  in  question  civily  or  criminally."  This, 
was,  by  a  number  of  persons,  regarded  as  a  declaration  of  w^ar 
against  these  three  men. 

Three  days  after  this  order  was  issued,  nine  daring  spirits 
determined  to  assassinate  one  Carmichall,  whom  Bishop  Sharp 
had  employed  to  exterminate  Presbyterianism  in  Fifeshire. 
Carmichall,  by  his  brutal  cruelties,  drove  the  people  to  despair. 
iSTine  individuals  secretly  laid  a  plan  either  to  put  him  to  death 
or  drive  him  from  the  country.  Carmichall  having  heard  that 
some  persons  were  inquiring  for  him — and  as  a  guilty  con- 
science makes  its  possessor  a  coward — kept  himself  concealed. 

The  persons  who  were  looking  for  him  were  about  to  dis- 
band, when  it  was  learned  that  Bishop  Sharp  was  approaching. 
One  of  the  party  exclaimed :  "  Our  arch-enemy  is  delivered 
into  our  hands."  It  was  then  proposed  that  they  put  him  to 
death.  One  of  them,  Hackston,  was  opposed  to  their  laying 
violent  hands  on  the  bishop,  but  finding  his  companions  deter- 
mined, he  consented  to  remain  with  them. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  99 

Sharp  AYRs  then  on  his  ^Yay  to  London  in  order  to  consum- 
mate a  plan  which  he  had  devised  for  the  complete  destruction 
of  Presbyterianism  in  Scotland. 

The  party  having  determined  to  take  his  life,  rode  to  Magus 
Moor,  about  three  miles  from  St.  Andrew's.  The  coach  in 
which  was  the  bishop  now  came  in  view.  The  party  rushed 
forward  at  full  gallop,  for  the  purpose  of  intercepting  it.  The 
bishop,  discovering  that  he  was  pursued,  urged  the  driver  to 
hasten  his  speed. 

The  iTursuers  soon  overtook  him,  when  one  of  them  dis- 
mounted the  driver,  cut  the  traces,  and  put  an  end  to  the  flight 
of  the  miserable  bishop.  Calling  him  b}-  the  name  of  him  who 
betrayed  the  Son  of  God  into  tbe  hand  of  sinners,  he  was  or- 
dered to  come  out  of  his  coach  and  prepare  to  die.  In  the  most 
piteous  tones  he  begged  for  his  life,  and  clung  to  his  daughter 
who  was  accompanying  him.  The  party  fired  upon  him,  but 
without  effect. 

It  was  manifest  that  so  long  as  the  bishop  remained  in  the 
coach  he  could  not  be  i»ut  to  death  without  taking  the  life  of 
his  daughter.  This  the  party  did  not  desire  to  do.  Again  he 
was  ordered  to  come  out  of  the  coach,  or  they  would  drag  him 
out.  He  obeyed,  but  continued  to  beg  for  his  life.  In  the 
moment  of  despair  he  promised  to  give  the  men  money,  to 
abandon  prelacy,  and  to  do  any  and  everything  which  might 
be  demanded,  if  they  would  only  spare  his  life.  He  was  told 
of  his  perjury,  of  his  betraying  his  friends,  and  of  the  eighteen 
years  of  bloodshed  which  he  had  caused.  The  conscience- 
smitten  primate  stood  apparently  forsaken  of  God.  He  was 
ordered  to  prepare  for  death.  In  this  trying  moment  he  was 
unable  to  offer  up  one  petition.  This  caused  those  who  had 
determined  to  take  his  life  to  stand  for  a  moment  appalled. 
During  this  moment  the  despairing  bishop  crept  to  Hackston, 
who  had  not  dismounted,  and  begged  him  to  interpose  in  his 
behalf.  Hackston  replied :  "  I  shall  never  lay  a  hand  upon 
you."'  At  this  instant  the  party  fired  and  the  bishop  fell.  The 
party  now  prepared  to  depart ;  but  on  looking  back  and  dis- 
covering that  the  bishop  was  still  alive,  they  returned  and  put 
an  end  to  his  life  with  their  swords. 

This  deed,  perpetrated  by  a  few  individuals,  Avhicli  the  Pres- 
byterian party  never  claimed  to  be  lawful,  incited  the  King 


100  HISTORY    OF    THE 

and  his  vile  minions  to  resolve  upon  the  extermination  of  all 
who  bore  the  Presbyterian  name.  The  country  was  filled  with 
tools  of  the  prelatic  party  in  search  of  the  murderers  of  Sharp. 
Houses  were  searched  and  the  inmates  asked  "  whether  they 
approved  of  the  killing  of  the  archbishop." 

The  point  at  which  forbearance  ceases  to  be  a  virtue  and  re- 
sistance becomes  a  duty,  had  now  been  clearly  reached.  At 
least,  this  was  the  opinion  of  a  few.  These  were  headed  by 
Robert  Hamilton,  a  man,  whatever  were  his  defects,  of  ac- 
knowledged personal  piety.  Robert  Hamilton  and  a  few 
others,  mostly  laymen,  thought  the  time  had  now  arrived 
when  it  was  their  duty  to  resist  the  tyrannical  usurpations  of 
the  dominant  party.  Richard  Cameron,  Donald  Cargill,  and 
Thomas  Douglass,  adopted  the  l)old  and  defiant  sentiments  of 
these  men. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  1679,  the  anniversary  of  the  return  of 
Charles  IT.,  less  than  one  hundred  of  these  friends  of  civil  and 
religious  lil)crty  went  armed  to  Rutherglen.  Bonfires,  in  com- 
memoration of  the  Restoration,  had  been  kindled.  These  they 
extinguished,  and  burned  the  acts  of  Parliament  and  Council, 
which  devoted  the  Presbyterians  to  destruction.  In  addition 
to  this,  they  read  a  Declaration  and  Testimony  of  their  own. 
After  having  afilxed  a  copy  of  this  paper  to  the  market-cross, 
they  peaceably  retired. 

This  was  a  move  in  advance  of  the  age,  and  may  be  regarded 
as  the  first  public  act  of  the  Covenanters  or  Reformed  Presby- 
terian Church.  It  produced  intense  indignation  among  the 
prelatic  party  and  led  to  the  battle  of  Drumclog,  in  which 
Graham  of  Claverhouse  was  defeated. 

As  the  Rutherglen  Declaration  and  Testimony  is  rarely,  if 
ever,  met  with  in  modern  books,  and  also  contains  facts  that 
are  worthy  of  being  preserved,  but  especially  since  it  was  de- 
clared a  proclamation  of  open  rebellion,  we  have  concluded  to 
insert  it  entire : 

••  As  the  Lord  hath  been  pleased  to  keep  and  preserve  his  interest  in  this  land, 
by  the  testimony  of  faithful  witnesses  from  the  beginning,  so  some  in  our  days 
have  not  been  wanting,  who,  upon  the  greatest  of  hazards,  have  added  their  tes- 
timony to  the  testimony  of  those  who  have  gone  before  them,  and  who  have 
suifered  imprisonments,  finings,  forfeitures,  banishments,  torture  and  death 
from  an  evil  and  perfidious  adversary  to  the  church  and  kingdom  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  in  the  land.     Now,  we  being  pursued  by  the  same  adversary  for  our 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTEllY.  101 

lives,  while  owning  the  interest  of  Christ,  according  to  his  word,  antl  the  Na- 
tional and  Solemn  League  and  Covenants,  judge  it  our  duty  (though  unworthy, 
yet  hoping  we  are  true  members  of  the  Church  of  Scotland),  to  add  our  testi- 
mony to  those  of  the  worthies  who  have  gone  before  us,  in  witnessing  against 
all  things  that  have  been  done  publicly  in  prejudice  of  his  interest,  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  work  of  reformation,  especially  from  the  year  1648  downward  to 
the  year  1600;  but  more  paricularly  those  since,  as: 

''1st.  Against  the  Act  rescissory  for  overturning  the  whole  covenanted  refor- 
mation. 

"2d.  Against  the  acts  for  erecting  and  estaljlishing  of  abjured  prelacy. 

"8d.  Against  that  declaration  imposed  upon  and  subscribed  by  all  jiersOns 
in  public  trust,  where  the  covenants  are  renounced  and  condemned. 

"4th.  Against  the  Act  and  Declaration  published  at  Glasgow  for  outing  of  the 
faithful  ministers  who  would  not  comply  with  prelacy,  whereby  three  hundred 
and  upward  of  them  were  illegally  ejected. 

"  5th.  Against  that  presumptuous  Act  for  imposing  an  holy  anniversary  day. 
as  they  call  it,  to  be  kept  yearly  upon  the  29th  of  May.  as  a  day  of  rejoicing  and 
thanksgiving  for  the  King's  birth  and  restoration;  whereby  the  appointers  have 
intruded  upon  the  Lord's  prerogative,  and  the  observers  have  given  the  glory  to 
the  creature  that  is  due  to  our  Lord  Redeemer,  and  rejoiced  over  the  setting  up 
and  usurping  power  to  the  destroying  the  interest  of  Christ  in  the  land. 

''6th.  Against  the  explicatory  Act.  1669.  and  the  sacriligious  supremacy  en- 
acted and  established  thereby. 

"  Lastly.  Against  the  Acts  of  Council,  their  warrants  and  instructions  to.  for 
indulgence,  and  all  other  their  sinful  and  unlawful  Acts,  made  and  executed  by 
them,  for  promoting  their  usurped  supremacy. 

"And  for  confirmation  of  this  our  Testimony,  Vv'e  do  this  day.  being  the 
29th  of  May.  1679.  publicly,  at  the  Cross  of  Rutherglen,  most  justly  burn  the 
above-mentioned  Acts,  to  evidence  our  dislike  and  testimony  against  the  same, 
as  they  have  unjustly,  perfidiously  and  presumptuously  burned  our  sacred  Cov- 
enants." 

Perhaps  the  reader  may  be  unable  to  discover  anything  very 
noteworthy  in  this  DcdaraUon  and  Testimony.  Let  it  l^e  re- 
membered that  the  men  who  published  this  paper  were  living- 
in  the  midst  of  a  people  who  had  not  as  yel  learned  that  a  gov- 
ernment could  exist  without  a  king,  and  who  believed  that  the 
king  was  head  of  the  church.  However  far  the  sentiments  of 
the  Rutherglen  Declaration  are  behind  those  of  the  present 
age,  they  were  as  much  in  advance  of  those  of  the  ago  in  which 
they  were  penned. 

The  Presbyterians  now  became  divided,  and  every  event 
which  transpired  only  served  to  make  the  lino  of  separation 
more  distinct. 

This  division  was  attended  with  many  misfortunes.  To  it 
may  be  traced  the  unfortunate  affair  at  Bothwell  Bridge  ;  but 
in  the  end  it  was  productive  of  great  good.     The  nation,  with- 


102  HISTORY    OF    THE 

out  acknowledging  it,  linall}'  adopted,  at  least  in  part,  the  sen- 
timents of  the  Covenanters,  and  drove  the  race  of  Stuarts  from 
the  throne  of  England. 

On  the  3d  of  June,  1680,  the  Covenanters,  in  the  Qaeens- 
ferry  Paper,  as  it  is  called,  uttered  a  sentiment,  which,  near 
one  hundred  years  afterward,  was  full\'  evolved  in  America. 
This  is  it : 

•■  We  do  declare  tiiat  we  shall  set  up  over  ourselves,  and  over  what  God  shall 
give  us  power  of,  government  and  governors  according  to  the  word  of  God; — 
that  we  shall  no  more  commit  the  government  of  ourselves  and  the  making  of 
laws  for  us  to  any  one  single  person,  this  kind  of  government  being  most  liable 
to  inconveniences,  and  aptest  to  degenerate  into  tyranny." 

There  is  rebellion  in  this.  It  is  the  lano-aage  of  men  struo-- 
gling  to  be  free.  It  contains  republican  sentiments  expressed 
in  strong  language.  The  principle  upon  which  it  is  based,  is 
that  "every  immoral  constitution  is  disapproved  of  by  God; 
and  no  man  ought  to  swear  allegiance  to  a  power  which  God 
does  not  recognize." 

After  the  Rutherglen  and  (Queen's  Ferry  Declarations^  the 
Covenanters  kept  themselves  aloof  from  all  except  their  own 
party.  They  were  few  in  number,  and  had  but  three  ministers 
— Richard  Cameron,  Donald  Cargill  and  Thomas  Douglass.  The 
two  former  were  the  most  zealous,  and  the  iirst  was  the  ac- 
knowledged leader.  Hence  the  Covenanters  received  the  name 
of  Cameronians.  Cargill  was  a  bold  and  fearless  man.  On  the 
17th  of  September,  1680,  in  the  presence  of  a  large  congrega- 
tion, he  fearlessly  excommunicated  from  the  privileges  of  the 
visible  church  the  King,  the  Duke  of  York,  the  Duke  of  Mon- 
mouth, the  Duke  of  Lauderdale,  the  Duke  of  Rothes,  General 
Dalziel  and  Sir  George  McKenzie. 

Cameron  fell  at  Airdsmoss,  on  the  22d  of  July,  1680 ;  but 
Cargill  took  the  blood-stained  standard  from  the  field  and 
bore  it  aloft  until  he  was  captured,  and  then,  having  been  soon 
after  condemned  of  high  treason,  was  executed  at  Edinburgh, 
on  the  27tli  of  July,  1681. 

The  Covenanters  were  now  without  a  minister ;  but  the  soci- 
eties sent  over  to  Holland  a  number  of  young  men  to  be  edu- 
cated with  a  view  to  entering  the  gospel  ministry.  So  rigidly 
Presbyterian,  were  these  Society  people  or  Cameronians,  that 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  103 

they  ^voukl  not  recognize  an}-  one  as  a  nnnister  of  the  New 
Testament  church  ^vho  had  not  been  regularly  ordained  bj'  a 
presbytery. 

They  had  severed  all  ecclesiastical  connection  ^vith  what 
they  regarded  the  corrupt  church  of  Scotland,  and  consequent- 
ly were  dependent  upon  foreign  churches  for  ministerial  ordi- 
nation. In  due  time  God  raised  up  Alexander  l*eden,  James 
Renwick,  Alexander  Shields,  Thomas  Boyd  and  David  Hous- 
ton to  minister  to  the  Cameronians  in  holy  things. 

Alexander  Peden  died  on  the  26tli  of  January,  1686.  "He 
was,"  says  one  who  was  able  to  judge,  "a  singularl}'  j»ious 
man."  This  did  not  protect  him  from  the  cruelties  of  the 
prelatic  party.  On  the  contrary,  it  maddened  their  hatred  into 
a  diabolical  frenzy.  When  he  died,  he  was  privately  buried 
by  David  Boswell,  in  the  church  of  Auchinleck;  but  the  sol- 
diers, by  whom  he  had  been  driven  from  mountain  to  moss, 
having  learned  the  place  of  his  interment,  exhumed  his  bones 
iifter  the\^  had  lain  in  the  grave  for  forty  days,  and  took  them 
to  Cumnock  and  buried  them  at  the  foot  of  a  gallows. 

James  Renwick,  who  was  ordained  by  the  Classis  of  Griinin- 
gen  to  the  full  work  of  the  gospel  ministry,  returned  to  Scot- 
land, and  for  a  period  of  five  years  was  faithful  in  preaching 
Christ  and  him  crucified  to  the  persecuted.  Cameronians.  On 
the  17th  of  Februar}',  1688,  in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  his 
age,  and  the  sixth  of  his  ministry,  he  was  put  to  death  for  his 
devotion  to  the  crown-rights  of  Jesus  and  his  Republican  prin- 
ciples.    The  charge  against  him  is  in  these  words: 

'•  You.  James  Renwick,  have  shaken  off  all  fear  of  God  and  respect  and  regard 
to  his  majesty's  authority  and  laws;  and  having  entered  yourself  into  the  soci- 
ety of  some  rebels  of  raost  damnable  and  pernicious  principles,  and  disloyal  prac- 
tices, you  took  upon  you  to  be  a  preacher  to  those  traitors,  and  became  so 
desperate  a  villain,  that  you  did  openly  and  frequentlj-  preach  in  the  fields,  de- 
claiming against  the  authority  and  government  of  our  sovereign  lord,  the  King, 
denying  that  our  most  gracious  sovereign.  King  James  the  Seventh,  is  lawful 
King  of  these  realms,  asserting  that  he  was  an  usurper,  and  that  it  was  not  law- 
ful to  pay  cess  or  taxes  to  his  majesty;  but  that  it  was  lawful  and  the  duty  of 
subjects  to  rise  in  arms  and  make  w^ar  against  his  majesty  and  those  commis- 
sioned by  him."' 

This  indictment  states  the  truth  so  far  as  denying  the  autho- 
rity of  King  James  was  concerned.  One  political  principle  of 
the  Cameronians  was  that  the  abuse  of  power  abrogates  the 
right  to  use  it.     They  boldly  declared  that.  James  II.  of  Eng- 


104  HISTORY    OF    THE 

land,  and  VII.  of  Scotland,  by  his  abuse  of  power,  had  for- 
feited all  title  to  the  crown,  and  that  it  should  be  conferred  on 
the  Prince  of  Orange.  This  principle  all  Protestants  adopted, 
to  a  limited  extent,  at  the  Revolution  of  1688,  and  drove  the 
Stuarts  from  the  throne  of  England. 

After  the  death  of  Renwick,  the  gospel  was  preached  and 
the  sacraments  administered  among  the  Society  people,  until 
the  time  of  the  Revolution,  by  Shields,  Linning  and  Boyd. 
Before  this,  however,  a  few  individuals  in  Ireland  had  espous- 
ed the  Cameronian  principles.  These  were  ministered  unto  by 
David  Houston. 

On  the  settlement  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  and  the  reestab- 
lishing of  the  Presb3'terian  Church  of  Scotland,  Shields,  Lin- 
ning and  Boyd  went  into  the  iSational  church.  Houston  only 
remained  true  to  his  principles,  but  he  seems  not  to  have  had 
much  influence  with  the  societies.  This  being  the  case,  the 
Cameronians  were  left  almost  without  a  minister. 

In  this  condition  they  remained  for  a  period  of  sixteen  years. 
During  this  time  they  continued  to  meet  in  societies  and  re- 
new the  covenants  which  their  fathers  had  made  with  God. 
The  Sabbath  was  remembered  and  kept  holy  by  these  pious 
people.  Their  children  were  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord.  The  older  and  more  experienced  in- 
structed the  young ;  and  notwithstanding  they  never  waited 
upon  the  ministry  of  any  of  the  clergy,  they  made  greater  at- 
tainments in  religious  knowledge  than  those  who  did. 

To  many  it  may  seem  strange  that  the  covenanters  did 
not  go  into  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  as  restored 
and  reoro-anized  under  William  the  Prince  of  Orano-e.  For 
this  they  were,  at  the  time,  greatly  abused,  and  .ever  since, 
they  have  by  a  certain  class  of  the  human  family,  been  held 
up  to  the  world  as  a  set  of  narrow-minded  bigots. 

No  doubt  these  people  exhibited  a  culpable  amount  of  stub- 
bornness, and  sometimes  magnified  motes  into  mountains  ;  but 
when  all  the  facts  are  investigated,  they  present  an  example  of 
unparallelled  consistency.  The  Prince  of  Orange  was  a  Pres- 
byterian, but  he  apostatized,  and  becoming  the  head  of  the 
Church  of  England,  exercised  supreme  control  over  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  Episcopacy  was  established  in  England  and  Ire- 
land, and  Presbyterianism  was  simply  permitted  in  Scotland 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  1U5 

for  IK)  other,  and  no  better  reason  than  that  it  was  agreeable  to 
the  people.  The  prerogative  to  convene  and  dissolve  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  was  vested  in  the  King's  commissioner.  Tfie 
Societv  people  claimed  that  the  King  might  convene  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  church,  in  extraordinary  cases,  for  tlie 
purpose  of  giving  him  advice  ;  but  further  than  this  he  had  no 
Scriptural  authority  to  go. 

It  was  the  misfortune  of  these  Society  people  that  they  were 
in  advance  of  the  age  in  which  they  lived.  Their  notions  of 
Presbyterianism  w^ere  clear  and  correct.  It  is  not  claimed  that 
they  never  erred,  even  in  the  application  of  their  own  princi- 
ples. Neither  is  it  denied  that  they  sometimes  pushed  their 
principles  too  far,  and  thus  ran  into  extremes. 

It  is  a  fact  that  they  did  not  enter  the  Presbyterian  church 
after  the  Revolutionary  Settlement.  They  were  not  led  by 
their  ministers ;  for  all  the  ministers,  except  one — Houston — 
deserted  the  people  and  joined  the  Established  church. 

From  the  death  of  James  Renwick,  in  1688,  to  1707,  these 
devoted  people  were  without  a  living  ministry. 

Soon  after  the  martyrdom  of  Cargill,  they  began  to  form 
themselves  into  societies  for  religious  worship,  and  in  the  lat- 
ter part  of  1681,  a  general  meeting  of  these  societies,  by  depu- 
ties, convened  at  Logan  House,  in  the  parish  of  Lesmahgow, 
Lanockshire.  These  societ}^  meetings  were  greatly  blessed  by 
the  King  and  Head  of  the  church  for  the  good  of  these  despised 
people. 


106  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  V. 

REF(JRMED  PRESBYTERIANS.  CONTINUED.— The  Rev.  John  McMillan 
Adopts  the  Sentiments  of  the  Cameronians — Is  Deposed — Covenanters  im- 
properly called  M"Millanites — McMillan's  Congregation  Cling  to  Him — Gen- 
eral Meeting  of  the  Society  People,  in  October.  17()() — Call  Presented  to  Mr. 
McMillan — Begins  His  Pastoral  Labors  in  1707 — Union  of  England  and 
Scotland — Society  People  Opposed  the  Union — The  Rev.  John  McNeil  Joins 
the  Society  People — Protestation  and  Testimony  of  the  United  Societies — 
Sanquhar  Declaration — Objections  to  the  Union  of  England  and  Scotland — 
Protestation  and  Appeal — Religious  and  Political  Parties  in  Scotland — 
Friends  of  the  Pretenders  and  Foes  of  the  House  of  Hanover — Renewing  the 
Covenants — The  Rev.  John  McMillan  Defective  as  an  Organizer — John  Mc- 
Neil never  Ordained  -Efforts  to  Organize  a  Presbytery — Adamson.  McHen- 
dry.  Taylor  and  Gilchrist  Deposed — Society  People  Attempt  to  Form  a  Union 
with  them — Also,  with  the  "  Marrow"  Men — Thomas  Nairn  Leaves  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  and  Joins  the  Society  People — The  Reformed  Presbytery 
Constituted,  August  1st.  1743 — Nairn  Returns  to  the  National  Church — Doc- 
trines of  the  Society  People — Political  Opinions — Covenanters  come  to  Amer- 
ica— Sent  to  New  Jersey — Lord  Pitlochy — Covenanters  Scatter  over  the  Coun- 
try— Their  Number  and  Places  of  Residence  in  Scotland—  Begin  to  Emigrate 
to  America — Form  Societies  in  America — First  General  Meeting  at  Middle 
Octoraro.  March  4th.  1744 — Covenanters  Joined  by  Rev.  Alexander  Craighead 
— Mr.  Craighead's  Difficulties — His  Congregation  Called  "Craighead  Soci- 
ety'"— Mr.  Craighead  Publishes  a  Pamphlet — Thomas  Cookson  Complains  to 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia — The  Synod  Condemn  the  Pamphlet — The  Rev. 
John  Cuthbertson  Comes  to  America — Mr.  Cuthbertson's  Labors-  First  Com- 
munion— The  Rev.  Alexander  McDowell  and  Mr.  Cuthbertson  Lal>or  Togeth- 
— Revs.  Linn  and  Dobbin  Come  to  America — Reformed  Presbytery  Consti- 
tuted— Synod  Organized — Division  in  the  Synod. 

Ih  1703,  John  McMillan,  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, adopted,  at  least  in  part,  the  opinions  of  the  Cameronians. 
For  this  he  was  tried  and  condemned  and  deposed  from  the 
gospel  ministry.  The  charge  brought  against  him  was  that 
he  held  anti-government  principles. 

From  John  McMillan  the  Covenanters  were  formerlj',  in  re- 
proach, called  "  McMillanites ;"  but  in  no  proper  sense  can  it 
be  said  that  John  McMillan  is  the  founder  of  the  Covenanter 
or  Reformed  Presbyterian  chm-ch.  Instead  of  the  Society  Peo- 
ple or  Cameronians  adopting  the  opinions  of  John  McMillan, 
he  adopted  the  opinions  of  the  Society  Peojtle,  and  that  not  at 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  107 

once,  but  gradually.  Immediately  after  lie  was  deposed,  the 
effort  was  made  to  drive  him  away  from  the  coHgregation  of 
Balmaghie,  of  Avhich  he  was  pastor.  The  people,  to  a  man, 
clung  with  ardent  attachment  to  their  pastor,  whom  the}^  dear- 
ly loved.  For  some  time  Mr.  McMillan  abstained  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  ministry  ;  but  despairing  of  ever  being  able  to 
secure  an  impartial  hearing  in  the  courts  of  the  Established 
Church  of  Scotland,  he  resumed  his  ministerial  labors  ;  not  in 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  however,  but  among  the  Society  Peo- 
ple. 

In  October,  1706,  a  general  meeting  of  the  Society  People 
was  held  at  Crawford-John.  At  this  meeting  a  call  was  pre- 
sented to  Mr.  McMillan  to  labor  among  them.  This  call  was  not 
gotten  up  hastily.  It  seems  that  the  matter  had  been  under 
•consideration  for  several  years,  and  the  call  was  not  presented 
at  this  meeting  until  it  had  been  thoroughly  discussed  b}'  the 
people.  Mr.  McMillan  accepted  the  call,  but  for  some  reason 
that  \ye  have  not  been  able  to  discover,  did  not  begin  his  pas- 
toral labors  among  the  Society  People  until  December,  1707. 

It  should  be  mentioned  in  this  place,  that  in  this  year  (1707) 
the  union  of  England  and  Scotland  was  consummated.  For 
fully  one  hundred  years  this  matter  had  been  under  considera- 
tion. From  the  time  of  James  VI  the  two  nations  had  been 
governed  bj'  one  monarch,  but  each  had  its  own  parliament 
iind  national  laws.  In  1707  the  two  nations  were  united  and 
the  Scotch  parliament  was  abolished.  This  union  was  far  from 
being  agreeable  to  the  whole  Scotch  nation.  Among  those  who 
opposed  the  union  were  the  Societ}^  peoi)le.  While  negotia- 
tions were  going  on,  they  opposed  the  contemplated  union,  and 
«fter  the  Scotch  parliament  had  risen,  never  again  to  be  seated, 
they  protested  against  what  had  l^een  done. 

About  this  time  John  McISTeil,  who  had  been  deprived  of  his 
license,  because  of  his  opposition  to  the  course  pursued  by  both 
church  and  state,  attached  himself  to  the  Society  People.  Un- 
der the  inspection  of  McMillan  and  McXeil  a  paper  was  drawn 
up  by  some  of  the  Society  People,  which  bears  the  following 
title :  "  Protestation  and  Testimony  of  the  United  Societies  of  the 
Witnessing  Remnant  of  the  Antipojrish,  Antiprelatic^Antierastia.n., 
Anti sectarian^  true  Presbyterian  Church  of  Christ  in  Scotland, 
against  the  sinful  Incorporating  Virion  with  England  and  their 


108  HISTORY    OF    THE 

British  Parliament^  Concluded  and  EstedjUshed  May,  1707."  This 
paper  was  published  at  Sanquhar,  on  the  22d  of  October,  1707. 
It  is  known  as  the  "Sanquhar  Declaration,"  and  was  the  third 
of  the  kind  which  had  been  published.  It  is  still  a  standard 
document  amontr  Eeformed  I'resbyterians,  and  eets  forth  very 
clearly  the  views  held  b}'  the  Cameronians. 

The  objections  to  the  union  of  England  and  Scotland,  as  stated 
in  the  "Sanquhar  Declaration,"  may  be  arranged  under  tvro 
heads  :  First,  Because,  by  a  union  with  England,  Scotland  loses 
her  national  identity  ;  or,  in  the  language  of  the  Declaration 
itself:  "By  this  incorporating  union  with  England  in  their 
sinful  terms,  this  nation  (Scotland)  is  debased  and  enslaved,  its 
ancient  independency  lost  and  gone;  t\\e  jxirliainentary power 
dissolved,  which  was  the  very  strength,  bulwark  and  basis  of 
all  liberties  and  privileges  of  persons  of  all  ranks  ;  of  all  man- 
ner of  courts  and  judicatories,  corporations  and  societies  with- 
in this  kingdom,  all  which  now  must  be  at  the  disposal  and 
discretion  of  the  BritiJi  Parliament.''  Second,  That  b^'  the 
union,  the  second  Article  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant 
was  violated.  The  reasoning  runs  thus:  The  second  Article  of 
this  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  binds  those  taking  it  to  "'-en- 
deavor the  extirpation  of  i»opery,  prelacy,  superstition,  heresy, 
seism."  &e.  The  established  Church  oi  England  is  prelatic  in 
its  government;  therefore,  all  who  are  in  favor  of  the  union 
of  England  and  Scotland,  tacitly  assent  to  prelacy,  and  thus  vio- 
late the  second  Article  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant. 

In  September,  1708,  another  paper,  entitled  "Protestation, 
Declinature  and  Appeal,"  was  prepared  and  signed  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Millan and  Mr.  McXeil.  In  this  paper,  Avhich  in  a  literary 
l^oint  of  view  is  inferior  to  the  Sanquhar  Declaration,  Mr.  Mc- 
Millan and  Mr.  ^MclN^eil  declare  their  firm  and  unfaltering  at- 
tachment to  the  standards  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  and  lift 
up  their  testimony  against  the  defections  of  the  times  in  both 
church  and  state. 

At  this  time,  or  soon  after,  Scotland  became  the  scene  of  vio- 
lent religious  and  political  parties.  The  papal  party  were,  by 
no  means,  favorable  to  the  house  of  Hanover,  from  which,  it 
was  correctl}''  judged,  Avas  to  sjiring  the  future  sovereigns  of 
England.  They  were  anxious  that  the  race  of  Stuarts  be  re- 
stored, and  hence  they  were  the  zealous  but  cautious  friends 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  109 

of  the  Pretender.  The  Episcopal  clergy  of  Scotland,  who,  in 
immorality  were  not  a  whit  behind  the  papal  priests,  threw  the 
weight  of  their  influence  in  favor  of  the  Pretender,  whom,  in 
pitying  accents,  they  styled  "the  lineal  heir  of  our  crown." 
These,  under  the  cloak  of  the  name  Protestant,  affirmed  that 
the  Protestant  successor  to  the  throne  of  England  was  as  much 
of  a  papist  as  the  Pretender,  and  he  was  a  pagan  besides.  By 
them  it  was  falsely  asserted  that  he  "communicated  thrice  a 
year  with  the  Romish  church  and  sacrificed  to  the  devil." 

The  wise  saw  this  fraud,  but  the  unwary  were  deceived,  and 
the  Protestant  succession  was  regarded  with  contempt  by  the 
unsuspecting.  Staunch  Protestants  regarded  these  vile  fabri- 
cations as  a  gross  insult.  Again  John  McMillan  and  John  Mc- 
Xeil  felt  it  their  duty  to  take  a  more  decided  stand  than  they 
had  done  heretofore  against  papistry  and  prelac3^ 

At  a  general  meeting  of  the  Societies,  at  Crawford-John,  in 
May,  1712,  what  they  had  previously  done  in  advancing  Refor- 
mation principles,  was  approved,  and  the  23d  of  July  was  ap- 
jDointed  as  the  time  for  again  making  a  public  acknowledgment 
of  sins  and  renewing  the  covenants.  On  the  appointed  day, 
the  great  mass  of  the  Society  People  met  at  Auchinsaugh,  near 
Douglass.  Mr.  McMillan  began  the  work  of  the  day  with  prayer 
for  special  assistance.  After  an  exhortation  by  Mr.  McMillan 
a  sermon  was  preached  by  Mr.  McXeil.  On  the  next  day  Mr. 
McMillan  preached,  and  read  the  acknowledgment  of  sins,  which 
had  been  read  on  the  previous  day.  Then  followed  the  "en- 
o-agement  to  duties." 

These  were  solemn  occasions.  The  people  stood  up,  and  with 
their  right  hands  pointing  to  heaven,  solemnly  pledged  them- 
selves to  be  for  God  and  not  for  another.  Truth  demands  that  we 
say  that  the  Society  People  were  equally  opposed  to  both  the 
house  of  Stuart  and  the  house  of  Hanover.  They  would  join 
neither  party.  This  exposed  them  politically  to  the  reproach 
of  papists  and  Protestants. 

Unfortunately,  they  lacked  liarmony  among  themselves. 
With  all  due  deference  to  the  memory  of  John  McMillan,  we 
are  compelled  to  say  that  he  was  defective  as  an  organizer.  It 
is  true  that  he  had  great  difficulties  to  contend  with.  The  peo- 
ple with  whom  he  was  associated  were  men  and  women  who 
thought  for  themselves.     It  was  impossible  to  drive  them  into 


110  HISTORY    OF    THE 

any  measure,  and  it  was  no  easy  matter  to  lead  them.  Many 
of  them  were  intellectually  superior  to  both  John  McMillan. 
and  John  McNeil.  The  Sanquhar  Declaration  demonstrates^ 
this  assertion.. 

The  great  difficulty  thesp.  Society  People  had  to  contend  with, 
durino;  the  orreater  part  of  Mr.  McMillan's  life,  -vVas  the  fact 
that  although  they  were  Presbyterians  of  the  strictest  sort, 
they  had  no  presbytery.  John  McXeil,  so  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  discover,  never  w^as  ordained.  John  McMillan  was  a 
frail  man — so  frail  that  he  could  not,  for  man}-  years,  dispense 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

To  remedy  these  evils  they  labored  diligently  to  restore  har- 
mony among  themselves ;  but,  unfortunately,  without  a  pres- 
byter}^ this  could  not  be  effected.  The  removing  of  one  diffi- 
culty generally  introduced  another. 

That  they  might  be  enabled  to  organize  a  presbytery,  they, 
or  at  least  a  portion  of  them,  insisted  that  some  of  their  own 
number  should  accept  ordination  nt  the  hands  of  Mr.  McMil- 
lan and  the  session,  on  the  call  of  the  people.  Under  the  pecu- 
liar circumstances  this,  we  suppose,  would  have  been  no  viola- 
tion of  Presb3terian  principles.  Some  things  are  lawful  in  a 
formative  church  which  would  not  be  in  a  church  fully  organ- 
ized. In  this,  however,  they  could  not,  or  did  not,  agree,  and 
no  one  was  ordained. 

During  this  period  in  the  history  of  the  Established  Church 
of  Scotland,  there  were  several  ministers  who,  because  of  their 
opposition  to  the  many  innovations  which  were  creeping  into 
the  church,  were  deposed  from  the  exercise  of  their  ministerial, 
functions.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  Adamson,  Mc- 
llenry,  Taylor  and  Gilchrist.  With  these  the  Society  People 
honestly  attempted  to  form  a  union,  and  thus  put  the  church 
in  a  working  condition. 

They  also  made  a  laudable  effort  to  form  a  union  with  the- 
"  twelve  Marrow  men,"  or  the  twelve  individuals  who  espoused 
and  defended  the  doctrines  of  grace  as  stated  in  the  work  enti- 
tled the  3Iarrow  of  31odern  Divinity.  In  these  praiseworthy 
efforts  they  were  unsuccessful. 

For  a  period  of  more  than  one-third  of  a  century,  John  Mc- 
Millan was  the   only  ordained  minister   who   had  the  moral 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  HI 

couras^e — rather  should  we  not  say  the  faith — to  advocate  pub- 
licly the  principles  held  by  the  Society  People. 

John  McMillan  presents  an  example  of  moral  heroism  un- 
exampled and  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Both 
he  and  the  people  among  whom  he  labored  were  treated  with 
disrespect — nay,  with  scorn  and  contempt — by  both  church 
and  state.  Xotwithstanding  this,  they  were  a  power  in  the 
land  ;  and  genuine  Presbyterianism  in  every  part  of  the  world 
is  gradually  verging  towards  the  high  opinions  held  by  these 
persecuted  people. 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Xairn,  a  member  of  the  Associate  Pre-^- 
bytery,  having  adopted  the  sentiments  of  the  Cameronians  re- 
specting civil  government,  became  involved  in  a  difficulty  with 
the  presbytery.  The  result  was  that  Mr.  Xairn  renounced  the 
authority  of  the  Associate  Church  and  joined  the  Cameronians. 

On  the  1st  of  August,  1743,  John  McMillan  and  Thomas 
Xairn  met,  and  with  the  usual  formalities  constituted  them- 
selves into  a  presbytery  which  they  called  the  Reformed  Pres- 
bytery. It  is  true  that  Xairn,  who  seems  to  have  been  a 
restless  spirit,  left  the  Reformed  Presbytery,  which  he  had  as- 
sisted in  constituting,  and  returned  to  the  Established  Church 
of  Scotland.  In  this  case,  as  in  every  other,  it  is  demonstrated 
that  truth  and  right  are  not  dependent  upon  men  alone  for 
their  perpetuation,  but  upon  the  will  of  God. 

The  Reformed  Presbytery,  as  we  have  seen,  having  been 
regularly  organized  in  1743,  continues,  with  some  slight  mod- 
ifications, unto  this  day.  It  never  was  strong  in  the  popular 
sense  of  the  word ;  neither  did  it  ever  show  signs  of  rapid 
growth.  This,  no  one  at  all  acquainted  with  human  nature 
and  the  doctrines  and  practices  advocated  by  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church,  would  expect.  Its  doctrinal  standards 
were  too  high,  and  its  practical  requirements  too  rigid  to  be  at 
all  palatable  to  the  mass  of  the  human  family.  Xotwith- 
standing all  this,  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  has  been, 
since  its  organization,  a  mighty  power  in  the  world.  It  stands 
among  all  other  Christian  denominations  like  a  gnarled  oak  in 
a  forest  of  dwarfed  undergrowth. 

The  doctrines  held  by  the  Society  People,  both  before  their 
organization  and  after  it,  were  those  contained  in  the  ^Vest- 
minster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  in  the  Larger  and  the  Shorter 


112  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Catechisms.  In  politics  they  were  Republicans  of  the  most 
ultra  sect.  They  had  suffered  so  much  from  Kings  and  Queens 
that  they  cherished  a  morljid  hatred  to  monarch}-  in  all  its 
forms. 

We  cannot  more  clearly,  and  certainly  not  more  truthfully, 
set  forth  the  peculiar  political  views  of  the  Reformed  Presbj'- 
terians  or  Society  People  than  by  quoting  their  own  language  : 

••  The  Presbytery  testifies  against  and  condemns  that  principle  that  the  Chris- 
tian people  of  God  ought  to  give  explicit  acknowledgment  of,  and  implicit  sub- 
jection and  obedience  to.  whatever  civil  authority  (though  most  wicked  and 
unlawful)  the  Lord,  in  his  holy  providence,  may,  for  the  trial  and  punishment 
of  his  church,  permit  a  backsliding  people  to  constitute  and  set  up,  without  re- 
gard to  the  precepts  of  his  word.  And  they  hereby  reject  whatever,  in  ojDposi- 
tiou  to  the  Church  of  Scotland,  does  justly  and  in  its  own  nature  imply,  a  vol- 
untary and  real  acknowledgment  of  the  lawfulness  of  the  title  and  authority  of 
an  anti-scriptural,  anti-covenanted  and  Erastian  government,  constituted  upon 
the  ruin  of  a  scriptural,  covenanted  reformation." 

So  for  as  is  positively  known,  the  iirst  Covenanters  or  "  So- 
ciety People  "  who  came  to  America  were  those  banished  from 
Scotland  in  the  year  168.3.  "  About  two  hundred  were  arrested 
and  thrust  into  prison,  because  of  their  supposed  connection 
with  the  invasion  of  the  Duke  of  Argyle.  After  having  suf- 
fered greatl}^  in  the  places  of  their  confinement,  Dunnotter 
Castle  and  Bass-Rock,  they,  together  with  many  others,  were 
put  on  board  a  vessel  ready  to  sail  for  ISTew  Jersey.  The}' 
sailed  from  Leith,  in  the  JRichard  Hutton,  on  the  5th  of  Sep- 
tember, and  arrived  in  Xew  Jersey  about  the  middle  of  Decem- 
ber. The  people  of  J^ew  Jersey,  near  the  coast,  mistaking 
them  at  first  for  banished  convicts,  treated  them  harshly.  "A 
little  way  up  the  country  there  was  a  town  where  there  was  a 
minister  settled,  and  the  inhabitants  there  were  very  kind  to 
them.  When  they  had  information  of  the  prisoners'  circum- 
stances, they  invited  all  who  were  able  to  travel  to  come  and 
live  with  them,  and  sent  horses  for  such  as  were  not,  and  en- 
tertained them  that  winter  freely  and  with  much  kindness." 

These  prisoners  had  been  given  to  George  Scot,  Lord  of  Pit- 
lochy,  but  Pitlochy  died  on  the  passage,  and  the  prisoners  fell 
into  the  hands  of  his  son-in-law,  Johnston. 

In  the  spring  of  1686,  Johnston  caused  all  the  prisoners  to 
be  cited  before  a  court  of  the  province.  The  jury  decided  that 
these  prisoners  had  bargained  with  Pitlochy,  not   Johnston, 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY,  113 

'"  for  money  or  service,  and,  therefore,  according  to  the  laws  of 
the  country  they  were  assoiled.'^ 

Some  of  these  exiled  covenanters  remained  in  ISTew  Jersey; 
some  went  to  'Sew  England ;  some  of  them  to  Pennsylvania ; 
and  some  of  them,  in  after  3^ears,  to  South  Carolina. 

The  number  of  Covenanters  in  Scotland  nev.er  was  very  large. 
They  resided  mainly  in  the  shires  of  Ranark,  Renfrew,  Ayr, 
Dumbarton,  Stirling,  IS'ithsdale,  and  the  Stewartrics  of  Annan- 
dale,  Wigton,  Kirkcudbright,  the  Lothians,  and  Bathgate. 
After  1685,  they  began  to  emigrate  to  America,  and  their  num- 
ber in  America  soon  became  equal,  or  nearly  equal,  to  that  in 
Scotland.  In  America,  as  in  Scotland,  they  organized  societies ; 
and  although  for  a  long  time  destitute  of  a  minister,  they  pre- 
served the  forms  of  religion  and  adhered  firmly  to  the  reforma- 
tion standards  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

These  societies  were  scattered  over  a  large  tract  of  country, 
or  rather,  some  of  them  were  at  a  great  distance  from  the  rest. 
The  larger  number  of  them  were,  as  well  as  can  be  ascertained 
at  this  late  day,  in  Pennsylvania;  but  there  were  societies  in 
several  other  States.  In  every  community  in  which  there  were 
two  or  three  families,  they  organized  themselves  into  what  was 
called  a  society  or  correspondence.  These  societies  or  corres- 
pondences all  met  together  by  representation  annually  or  semi- 
annually, very  much  as  a  presbytery  or  synod.  This  was  called 
the  General  Meeting.  The  first  General  Meeting  of  which, 
so  far  as  is  known,  any  tecord  remains,  was  at  Middle  Octoraro, 
March  4,  1744.  There  were  present  fourteen  delegates,  repre- 
senting seven  societies.  The  Rev.  Alexander  Craighead  was 
chosen  President  of  this  General  Meeting. 

The  history  of  Mr.  Craighead's  connection  with  the  "  Society 
People"  is  involved  in  very  considerable  obscurit}'.  It  is  not 
certain  when  nor  where  he  was  born.  The  probability  is  that 
he  was  born  and  educated  in  Ireland.  It  is  generally  supposed 
that  he  was  the  son  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Craigliead.  He  was 
licensed  by  the  Presbytery  of.  Donegal  (Presbyterian)  on  the 
8th  of  October,  1734,  and  ordained  and  installed  pastor  of 
Middle  Octoraro,  on  the  18th  of  November,  1735.  He  very 
soon  became  involved  in  a  difficulty  with  some  of  his  people 
and  with  some  of  the  neighboring  pastors.  His  difficultv"  with 
the  latter  was  that  he  "  carried  the  gospel  to  the  people  of  Xew 

9 


114  HISTORY    OF    THE 

London,  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  tlie  minister,  the  session 
and  most  of  the  congregation.'""  Some  of  the  people  of  his  pas- 
toral charge  complained  that  he  required  them  to  adopt  the 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant  when  having  tlieir  children  bap- 
tized. 

When  he  first  began  to  insist  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Sol- 
emn League  and  Covenant  is  not  certainl}-  known  ;  but  it 
must  have  been  very  soon  after  his  ordination^  from  the  fact 
that  in  the  latter  })art  of  1740  he  withdrew  from  the  presby- 
tery. His  case  came  up  before  the  synod  in  May  1741,  and 
after  several  days,  or  parts  of  days,  had  been  spent  in  consid- 
ering it,  the  matter  was  finally  lost  sight  of  by  a  protest 
brought  in  by  the  Rev.  Robert  Cross. 

It  is  probable  that  during  all  the  time  that  his  case  was  be- 
fore the  presbytery  and  synod,  and  even  before  this  time,  Mr. 
Craighead  had  been  associated  with  the  "  Society  People." 
The  General  Meeting  of  the  societies  to  which  reference  has 
alread}'  been  made,  was  certainly  in  the  church  of  which  he 
was  pastor,  and  at  least  a  respectable  portion  of  his  congrega- 
tion held  like  views  with  himself.  The  evidence  of  this  is  the 
fact  that  his  congregation  is  called  the  "  Craighead  Societ}'," 
and  sent  two  representatives,  Robert  Laughhead  and  Josiah 
Kerr. 

Mr.  Craighead  entertained  the  peculiar  views  of  the  Society 
People  concerning  civil  government.  Those  opinions  were 
oftensive  both  to  the  denomination  with  %vhich  he  was  con- 
nected and  to  the  civil  officers.  In  the  language  of  Foote,  "He 
w^as  ahead  of  his  ministerial  brethren  in  Ptmnsylvania  in  his 
views  of  civil  government  and  religious  liberty."  Some  time 
previous  to  1743,  Mr.  Craighead  published  a  pamphlet,  the 
nature  of  which  is  not  now  certainly  known,  but  it  certainly 
was  exceedingly  offensive  to  the  civil  authorities.  Thctmas 
Cookson,  one  of  his  majesty's  justices  of  the  peace  for  Lancas- 
ter county,  in  the  name  of  the  Governor,  brought  the  subject 
matter  of  this  pamphlet  to  the  attention  of  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, at  its  meeting  in  the  spring  of  1743.  The  s\mod  hav- 
ing suspended  its  regular  business,  gave  its  undivided  atten- 
tion to  the  consideration  of  this  pamphlet.  Mr.  Craighead 
was  not  present.  After  due  consideration,  the  synod  "  unani- 
mously agreed  that  it  (the  pamphlet)  was  full  of  treason,  sedi- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  115 

tion  and  distraction  and  grievous  perverting  of  the  sacred 
oracles  to  the  ruin  of  all  Societies  and  civil  government,  and 
directly  and  diametrically  opposed  to  our  religious  principles, 
as  we  have,  on  all  occasions  openly  and  publicly  declared  to 
the  world;  and  we  hereby  unanimously,  with  the  greatest  sin- 
cerity, declare  that  we  detest  this  paper,  and  with  it  all  princi- 
ples and  practices  that  tend  to  destroy  the  civil  or  religious 
rights  of  mankind,  or  to  foment  or  encourage  sedition  or  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  civil  government  that  we  are  now  under, 
or  rebellion,  treason,  or  anything  that  is  disloyal.  And  if  Mr. 
Craighead  be  the  author,  we  know  nothing  of  the  matter.. 
And  we  declare  that  he  hath  been  no  member  of  our  Society 
for  some  time  past,  nor  do  we  acknowledge  him  as  such.'' 

It  is  most  evident,  from  this  declaration,  that  Mr.  Craig- 
head's pamphlet  was  of  a  political  and  not  of  a  religious  char- 
acter. It  is  further  evident  that  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia 
was  loyal  to  the  crown,  while  Mr.  Craighead,  like  the  Cove- 
nanters, was  disloyal  and  rebellious. 

Although  Mr.  Craighead  cooperated  with  the  Covenanters, 
he  never  was  a  member  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 
The  exact  length  of  the  period  of  his  cooperation  cannot  be 
lixed  with  absolute  certainty.  Perhaps  it  was  not  more  than 
ten  years,  and,  actively,  a  much  shorter  time  than  that. 

After  leaving  the  Covenanters,  he  made  ap[>lication,  as  will 
be  seen  in  the  proper  place,  to  the  Anti-Burghers  of  Scotland. 
The  first  Covenanter  or  Reformed  Presbyterian  minister  who 
came  to  America  was  the  Rev.  John  Cuthbertson,  a  native  of 
Scotland.  He  was  ordained  to  the  full  work  of  the  gospel  min- 
istry some  time  previous  to  the  year  1750,  since  at  that  time 
he  was  Moderator  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Presbyteiy. 
Very  soon  after  this,  probably  the  same  year,  he  and  Thomas 
Cameron  were  sent  as  missionaries  by  the  presbytery  to  which 
they  belonged  to  Ireland.  This,  so  far  as  can  be  learned,  is 
the  date  at  which  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  began 
its  missionary  labors  in  Ireland.  It  is  rather  remarkable  that 
John  Cuthbertson  should  be  the  first  Reformed  Presbyterian 
missionaiy  both  to  Ireland  and  America. 

Mr.  Cuthbertson  landed  in  America  on  the  5th  of  August, 
1751,  and  on  the  9th  of  tlie  same  month,  at  the  house  of  Joseph 
Ross,  near  the  line  that  divides  Pennsylvania  from  Maryland, 


116  HISTORY    OF   THE 

preached  the  first  sermon  ever  preached  in  America  bj  a  Re- 
formed Pi-esbyterian  minister.  Previous  to  the  arrival  of  Mr. 
Cuthhertson  there  were  fifteen  or  twenty  societies  in  eastern 
Penns^-lvania.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  the  exact 
number  in  any  of  the  other  States. 

For  a  period  of  about  twenty-three  years  Mr.  Cuthhertson 
labored  among  the  far-scattered  societies  of  Eeformed  Presby- 
terians in  America.  The  greater  part  of  his  preaching  was 
done  in  private  houses,  but  it  is  highly  probable  that  even  be- 
fore his  arrival  some  of  the  societies  had  erected  houses  of 
worshiix 

The  labors,  both  physical  and  mental,  of  Mr,  Cuthbertson 
during  the  first  year  of  his  residence  in  America,  were  simply 
ii:iarvelous.  He  preached  one  hundred  and  twenty  days ;  rode 
on  horseback. over  mountains  and  hills,  often  fording  swollen 
creeks  and  deep  rivers,  nearly  twenty-five  hundred  miles ;  bap- 
tized one  hundred  and  ten  children,  and  married  ten  couples. 
His  public  services  at  each  one  of  his  preaching  stations  gen- 
erally consumed  from  four  to  five  hours.  On  the  23d  of  Au- 
gust, 1752,  he  for  the  first  time  after  coming  to  America,  ad- 
ministered the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  exercises 
on  this  occasion  consumed  nine  hours.  Six  or  eight  persons 
were,  on  examination,  admitted  to  membership,  and  two  hun- 
dred communed. 

During  the  whole  oH  the  twenty-three  years  that  Mr.  Cuth- 
bertson labored  alone,  his  work,  instead  of  decreasing  in 
amount,  increased;  and  instead  of  becoming  lighter,  became 
more  burdensome. 

It  is  proper  to  be  mentioned  in  this  place  that  while  it  has 
been  said  that  the  Rev.  John  Cuthbertson  was.  the  first  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  minister  who  came  to  America,  this  is 
true  only  so  far  as  well-authenticated  and  specific  facts  show. 
AVhen,  in  1685,  the  Covenanters  landed  in  America,  they  were 
kindl}^  received  by  a  minister  of  the  gospel  who  seems  to  have 
held  similar  views  with  themselves.  I^ot  only  so,  but  in  Con- 
necticut, in  1759,  Mr.  Cuthbertson  met  with  a  Mr.  Alexander 
McDowell,  who,  "ive  are  led  to  believe,  was  a  Reformed  Presby- 
terian minister.  On  several  occasions  Mr.  McDowell  preached 
for  Mr.  Cuthbertson,  and  assisted  him  in  administering  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  October,  1761.     More  than 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  117 

this:  One  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  congregations,  prob- 
ably Rock  Creek,  (now  Gettysburg,)  made  out  a  call  for  Mr. 
McDowell.  It  is  clear  that  both  Mr,  Cuthbertson  and  the  lay 
members  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery  held  Christian  commun- 
ion with  Mr.  McDowell  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
This,  we  suppose,  they  would  not  have  done  had  Mr.  Mc- 
Dowell not  been  a  Reformed  Presbyterian.  Xeither  would 
they  have  invited  him  to  become  their  pastor. 

There  is  another  fact  in  this  connection  which  is  worthy  of 
note.  When  Mr.  Cuthbertson,  in  1759,  went  to  Connecticut, 
he  says  he  preached  in  a  "meeting-house,"  implying  that  it 
was  a  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church.  This  house  of  worship 
was  in  Pelkham.  About  Mr.  Alexander  McDowell  we  know 
nothing  more  than  the  above  fact,  except  that  he  lived  east  of 
the  Connecticut  river. 

In  addition  to  Mr.  McDowell  there  was  a  Mr.  McClelland, 
who  frequently  and  at  several  places  assisted  Mr.  Cuthbertson 
on  sacramental  occasions.  Mr.  Cuthbertson  first  mentions  his 
name  in  connection  with  dispensing  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  at  Octoi-aro,  in  April,  176(3.  Of  this  Mr.  McClelland 
we  know  nothino;  further  than  that  ^h\  Cuthbertson  not  being 
altogether  satisfied  with  him,  he  went  to  Xew  England. 

From  the  facts  stated  with  regard  to  ^Messrs.  McDowell  and 
McClelland,  we  are  safe  in  concluding  that  they  both  were 
either  Reformetl  Presbyterians,  or  most  positivel}^  in  hearty 
sympathy  with  Reformed  Presbyterians.  At  that  time  Re- 
formed Presbyterians  were  not  accustomed  to  hold  either  min- 
isterial or  Christian  communion  with  any  but  Reformed  l*res- 
byterians,  or  those  in  avowed  sympathy  with  Reformed  Pres- 
byterians. 

Early  in  1774,  the  Rev.  John  Cuthbertson  was  joined  by  the 
Revs.  Matthew  Linn  and  Alexander  Dobbin,  missionaries  sent 
out  by  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  presbytery  of  Ireland. 

On  the  9th  of  March,  1774,  Messrs.  Cuthbertson,  Linn  and 
Dobbin  met  at  Paxton,  Daupbin  county.  Pa.,  and  took  into 
consideration  the  propriety  of  organizing  themselves  into  a 
presbytery.  On  the  next  day,  the  lOtli  of  March,  1774,  they 
again  rnet,  and  in  due  form  consummated  the  organization 
concerning  which  they  had  deliberated  on  the  previous  day. 


118  HISTORY    OF    THE 

During  the  year  1774  there  were  three  meetings  of  the  pres- 
bytery. The  first,  after  its  organization,  was  at  Gettysburg, 
on  the  23d  and  24th  of  May.  The  next  was  "at  George  Gra- 
ham's, Pequa,  on  the  23d  and  24th  of  November,  and  the  third 
at  Philadelphia  on  the  26th  of  I^ovember. 

AVhen,  in  1782,  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  was  organ- 
ized, there  were  only  five  Reformed  Presbyterian  ministers  in 
America,  viz:  John  Cuthbertson,  Matthew  Linn,  Alexander 
Dobbin,  AVilliam  ^Martin  and  David  Telfar.  Mr.  Martin  was 
under  suspension  and  did  not  go  into  the  union.  A  minority 
of  the  people  did  not  coalesce  with  the  Associate  Presbytery. 
These  applied  to  the  judicatories  of  the  motlier  country  and 
from  them  received  ministerial  aid.  The  fragments  of  the  old 
congregations  were  gathered  up  and  new  ones  organized,  and 
the  Reformed  Presbj'terian  Church  srill  has  an  existence  in 
America. 

In  1809,  "  The  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church 
in  America  "  was  constituted.  About  the  year  1830,  a  contro- 
versy sprung  up  in  the  Synod  as  to  whether  or  not  tlie  general 
principles  held  by  the  church  in  regard  to  civil  government, 
applied  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  result  Avas 
that  an  unfortunate  division  took  ydace  in  the  church,  in  1838 
each  claiming  to  be  the  true  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 
The  supremo  judicatory  of  the  one  branch  is  denominated  the 
General  S3'nod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  and  of 
the  other  it  is  simph'  the  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Churcli.  Of  these  two  branches  the  General  Synod  is  the 
weaker,  but  the  difterence  in  their  strength  is  not  great. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  119 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ASSOCIATE  PRESBYTERY  UNPOPULAR— A  few  Ministers  in  the  National 
Church  Friends  of  the  Associate  Presbytery — The  Erskine  Party  Loosed 
from  their  Pastoral  Relations — The  Dominant  Party  Frightened — Acts  of 
Assembly  Annulled — Popular  Movement — Assembly's  Act  in  Reference  to 
the  Return  of  the  Erskine  Party — Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling  Restore  the 
Seceders — Ebenezer  Erskine  Elected  Moderator — People  Desired  the  Seces- 
sion Party  to  Return — Established  Church — The  Secession  Party  could  not 
Return — Mr.  Wilson  Perplexed — Seceders  Summoned  before  the  Assembly — 
Appear  as  a  Presbytery — Their  Declinature — Action  of  the  Assembly — Se- 
ceders Reluctantly  Leave  the  Established  Church — They  Had  no  Alternative 
— Mr.  John  Hunter  Licensed — Andrew  Clarkson  Licensed — Thomas  Nairn 
Joins  the  Associate  Presbytery — John*  Hunter  Ordained — He  Dies  in  1740 — 
James  Thompson  Joins  the  Associate  Presbytery — James  Mair  and  Adam 
Beugo  Join  the  Associate  Presbytery — They  are  Ordained  Ministers  in  1740 — 
Growth  of  the  Associate  Presbytery — Strict  Discipline — No  Patronage — No 
Ruling  Elders  for  four  years — First  Elders — Presbyterian  Order — Theologi- 
cal Professor  Chosen. 

The  Associate  Presbytery,  at  the  time  of  its  ora;anizatioii, 
had  but  few  friends  among  the  ministers  of  the  Established 
Church  of  Scotland.  Among  the  lay-members  it  was  far  other- 
wise. It  seems  that  error  generally  creeps  into  the  visible 
church  through  the  ministers,  and  reform  is  usually  begun  by 
the  private  members.  A  little  learning  makes  some  men  mad. 
Very  often,  both  in  church  and  state,  the  voice  of  the  people 
is  the  voice  of  God.  The  members  of  the  Associate  Presbyteiy 
were,  for  a  number  of  years,  very  careful  to  avoid  doing  aii}'- 
thing  that  might  even,  by  their  enemies,  be  regarded  as  revo- 
lutionary in  its  tendency,  or  even  in  appearance.  It  was  re- 
formation, not  revolution,  for  which  they  contended.  They 
desired  no  changes  to  be  made  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  adopted  in  1647. 

It  is  cheerfully  admitted  that  there  were  a  few  ministers  in 
Scotland  who  regarded  the  action  of  the  Commission  and  Gen- 
eral JVssembly  toward  Ebenezer  Erskine  and  his  coadjutors  as 
irregular,  unpresb3'terial,  tyrannical,  unrighteous  and  shock- 
ingly wicked. 


120  HISTORY    OF    THE 

For  a  short  time  these  intense  sympathizers,  but  timid  friends, 
of  the  Erskine  party,  checked  the  dominant  party. .  An  effort 
was  made  to  restore  the  four  seceding  brethren  to  their  former 
place  and  position  in  the  Established  Church.  The  action  of 
both  Commission  and  General  Assembly  by  which  they  had 
been,  in  the  language  of  that  time,  "loosed"  from  their  pas- 
toral charges,  and  declared  no  longer  ministers  of  the  ISTational 
Church,  was  by  the  Assembly  of  1734,  declared  to  be  inoper- 
ative. 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  which 
met  in  May,  1734,  was,  in  many  respects,  a  very  remarkable 
one.  Considerable  care  had  been  taken  in  selecting  delegates 
who  were  thought  to  be  capable  of  doing  right,  and  the  number 
of  heterodox  members  was  less  than  usual,  and  far  less  bold  and 
reckless.  Only  honest  men  are  brave  and  fearless.  Tyrants 
are  all  cowards.  Such  w^as  demonstrated  to  be  the  case  by  the 
dominant  party  in  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland  at  the 
period  under  consideration.  By  their  tyrannical  acts  they  had 
sown  broadcast  the  seeds  of  disaffection,  and  now  they  trem- 
ble lest  these  seeds  may  spring  up-  and  produce  an  open  rup- 
ture. 

There  is  a  period  in  every  man's  life  when  conscience  awakes 
from  its  slumbers  and  pierces  his  soul  as  with  a  two-edged 
sword.  Some  time  in  the  history  of  every  human  being, 
brought  up  in  a  Christian  land,  his  sins  will  find  him  out,  and 
the  prospects  of  their  dread  consequences  will  fill  his  very 
bones  with  weakness. 

For  a  period  of  about  twenty  years,  the  corrupt  party  in  the 
Church  of  Scotland  had  been  rushing  on  in  a  career  of  lawless- 
ness and  folly.  Xow  (1734)  they  begin  to  tremble  lest  they 
have  paved  the  way  to  their  own  destruction. 

To  avoid  this  dreaded  calamity,  several  odious  acts  of  pre- 
vious Assemblies  were  repealed,  and  many  of  the  acts  and  de~' 
cisions  of  the  Commission  were  in  some  cases  reversed,  and  in 
others  annulled. 

A  Commission  w^as  appointed  to  petition  George  II.  for  a 
repeal  of  the  patronage  act,  and  that  ministerial  freedom  which 
had  been  by  the  Assembly  of  1733  restrained  tow^ards  the  Revs. 
Ebenezer  Erskine,  "William  Wilson,  Alexander  Moncrieft'  and 
James  Fisher,  was  now  granted. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  •  121 

These  were  popular  movements,  designed  to  quiet  the  wide- 
extended  dissatisfaction  which  tyrannical  ecclesiastical  legisla- 
tion had  produced.  Manifestly',  the  General  Assembly  of  1734 
was  anxious  to  get  the  Seceders  back,  as  the  following  act  will 
abundantly  show : 

••  The  General  Assembly,  considering  the  great  hurt  and  prejudice  that  hath 
at  all  times  arisen,  and  must  yet  arise  to  the  church,  from  divisions  and  ani- 
mosities creeping  in  and  taking  root  among  the  members  thereof,  notwithstand- 
ing their  unanimity  in  sentiments  upon  material  and  fundamental  points,  which 
more  nearly  concern  the  promoting  the  interests  of  our  blessed  Lord  and  Sav- 
iouiv  the  establishing  the  peace  of  the  church  and  the  advancement  of  practical 
godliness  and  true  religion  within  the  bounds  of  it.  and  particularly  the  lament- 
able consequences  that  have  followed,  and  may  yet  follow,  upon  the  separation 
of  Messrs.  Ebenezer  Erskine.  William  Wilson.  Alexander  Moucrietf  and  James 
Fisher  from  this  church  and  the  judicatories  thereof  :  and  judging  it  their  duty 
to  endeavor,  by  all  just  and  proper  means,  consistent  with  the  honor  and  glory 
of  God.  and  the  maintaining  the  peace  and  authority  of  the  church,  to  restore 
harmony  and  brotherly  love  among  all  the  members  of  it :  Therefore,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  without  further  inquiring  into,  the  occasion  or  steps  of  proceed- 
ing, either  on  the  part  of  the  said  brethren,  or  by  the  several  judicatories  under 
whose  consideration  the  case  hath  been,  which  may  have  jjroduced  that  unhappy 
separation,  but  resolving  that  all  questions  on  these  heads  shall  for  hereafter  be 
comfortably  removed,  have  empowered,  and  hereby  do  empower,  the  Synod  of 
Perth  and  Stirling,  before  whom  the  exceptions  to  some  part  of  the  conduct  of 
two  of  these  four  reverend  brethren  were  first  taken  and  tried,  upon  such  api)li- 
cation  made  to  them  as  they  shall  judge  proper,  to  take  the  case  of  said  four 
brethren,  as  it  now  stands,  under  their  consideration,  with  full  power  to  the  said 
Synod  to  proceed  and  do  therein  as  they  shall  find  most  justifiable  and  expedi- 
ent for  restoring  the  peace  and  preserving  the  authority  of  this  church  and  re- 
storing them  to  their  respective  charges.  But  with  this  express  direction:  that 
the  Synod  shall  not  take  ujion  them  to  judge  of  the  legality  or  formality  of  the 
former  proceedings  of  the  church  judicatories  in  relation  to  this  afi!air,  either  to 
approve  of  or  condemn  the  same:  but  shall  only,  in  virtue  of  the  power  and  au- 
thority now  delegated  to  them  by  the  Assembly,  proceed  to  take  such  steps  for 
attaining  the  above  ends  for  the  future  as  they  shall  find  just  and  tending  to 
edification;  And  the  Assembly  do  hereby  appoint  the  aforesaid  Synod  to  meet 
at  Stirling  upon  the  first  Tuesday  of  July  next,  and  from  time  to  time  name  and 
appoint  the  place  and  diets  of  their  after  meetings  on  the  said  affair  as  they  shall 
see  cause,  until  the  matter  shall  be  ripened  for  a  final  conclusion;  and  recom- 
mend to  them  to  use  their  utmost  endeavors  to  bring  the  matter,  as  soon  as  rea- 
sonably can  be.  to  a  final  and  happy  issue."' 

This  is  a  most  wonderful  enactment  to  be  made  by  a  grave 
and  dignified  and  wise  body  of  men  as  we  are  accustomed  to 
think  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  to  be. 
It  is  difficult  to  understand  by  what  motive,  except  fear,  the 
Assembly  was  impelled,  when  it  passed  this  act.  It  is  unpres- 
byterian  from  beginning  to  end.     The  General  Assembly  of 


122  HISTORY    OF    THE 

1734  does  not  say  that  the  General  Assembly  of  1733  did  wrong 
by  its  commission  in  "  loosin^^  "  from  their  pastoral  charsjes 
Mr.  Erskine  and  his  three  friends;  but  simply  ordered  the 
Sj'nod  of  Perth  and  Stirhng  to  restore  them  without  inquiring 
into  the  "  legality  or  formality  '"  of  any  former  proceedings  in 
their  case.  This,  the  Assembly  had  no  right,  according  to 
Presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  to  do.  All  that  it 
could  do  was  to  say  that  the  former  proceedings  in  the  case  of 
Mr.  Erskine  were  right  or  wrong.  If  they  were  right — that 
is,  lawful — it  was  sinful  in  the  Assembly  to  order  them  to  be 
restored.  If  wrong,  all  that  it  had  to  do  was  to  declare  those 
proceedings  null  and  void.  This,  without  any  further  act, 
would  have  restored  Mr.  Erskine  and  his  three  friends. 

It  is  manifest  to  any  unprejudiced  mind  that  it  was  not  the 
design  of  the  Assembl}',  in  passing  this  act,  to  advance  the 
glory  of  God  and  maintain  the  authority  of  the  church. 

A  portion  of  the  Assembly  were  thoroughly  convinced  that 
the  Commission,  in  "loosing"'  the  protesting  brethren  from 
their  pastoral  charges,  perpetrated  a  great  wrong  and  flagrant 
injustice.  The  anxiety  of  this  portion  of  the  Assemby  to  se- 
cure the  restoration  of  the  Secession  party  was  so  great  that  it 
failed  to  scrutinize  closely  into  the  mode  proposed  b}^  the  As- 
sembly to  reinstate  them  to  their  former  standing.  In  order 
to  attain  a  desired  good,  the}'  suffered  a  wrong  to  be  done. 
Those  opposed  to  the  Secession — and  they  were  in  the  ma- 
jority— seem  to  have  been  urged  on  by  a  fear  that  unless  some 
act  of  clemency  was  passed,  secession  principles  would  be  gen- 
erally adopted  and  the  nuniber  of  iSeceders  raj^idly  multiplied. 
By  the  passage  of  the  above-quoted  act,  it  was  thought  the 
odium  of  secession  would  be  cast  upon  the  Seceders,  and  the 
tendency  to  secede  effectuallj'  stopped. 

Agreeably  to  the  decree  of  the  Assembly,  the  Synod  of  Perth 
and  Stirling  met  on  the  2d  da}'  of  July,  and  "  with  one  voice 
and  consent  took  ofl:'  the  sentences  pronounced  by  the  Com- 
mission of  the  General  Assembly  of  1733  against  the  aforesaid 
four  brethren,  Messrs.  Ebenezer  Erskine,  William  Y/ilson, 
Alexander  Moncrieif  and  James  Fisher,  declaring  the  same  of 
no  force  or  effect  for  the  future  ;  united  and  restored  them  to 
ministerial  communion  in  this  church,  to  their  several  charges, 
and  to  the  exercise  of  all   parts   of  the  ministerial  function 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  123 

therein,  as  fully  and  freely  as  if  there  had  never  been  act,  sen- 
tence, obstacle  or  impediment  whatsoever  in  the  way  thereof  in 
time  past ;  all  which  are  hereby  declared  sopite  and  set  aside 
for  the  future." 

It  is  strange  that  the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling  could  be 
induced  so  to  stultify  themselves  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  as  to 
frame  the  above  decision.  It  was  this  Synod  that  found  Mr. 
Erskine  censurable,  because  he  had  dared  to  intimate,  in  a  ser- 
mon, that  there  were  corruptions  in  the  Church  of  Scotland. 
Mr.  Erskine  had  retracted  nothing  that  he  had  said  in  that 
sermon ;  but  on  all  proper  occasions  was  ready  to  repeat  it. 

To  the  contradictory  actions  of  the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Stir- 
ling there  is  an  explanation.  Every  community  is,  to  a  very 
great  extent,  under  the  control  of  a  few  persons.  The  same  is 
true  of  both  civil  governments  and  ecclesiastical  courts.  The 
tendency  of  every  government  is  to  degenerate  into  an  aristoc- 
rac}-.  The  few  control  the  many.  Presbyterianism  and  igno- 
rance are  incompatible.  It  is  capable  of  demonstration  that 
the  mass  of  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland,  at  the  period 
of  the  secession,  had  only  ill-defined  notions  of  Bible  Presby- 
terian rsm.  A  representative  republic  was  a  form  of  govern- 
ment that  was  but  poorly  understood  at  the  time  the  Secession 
Church  was  organized.  The  Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling 
thought  they  must  obey  the  General  Assembly,  whether  the 
Assembly  obeyed  God  or  not.  The  unscriptural  notion  that 
the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church  could  not  do  wrong,  was 
firmly  fixed  in  the  minds  of  many,  both  of  the  people  and 
ministers. 

Xo  doubt  this  notion  led  the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling  to 
revoke  all  it  had  said  and  done  concerning  Mr.  Erskine"s  Perth 
sermon  ;  and  it  was  led  to  find  fault  with  that  sermon  because 
it  was  exceedingly  unpalatable  to  the  few  who  exercised  do- 
minion, or  were  striving  for  dominion  over  the  rest. 

But  a  short  time  after  ttie  Synod  had  "taken  ofl:'"'  the  sen- 
tence pronounced  by  the  Commission  of  the  General  Assembly, 
the  Presbytery  of  Stirling  met  and  elected  Mr.  Ebenezer  Ers- 
kine moderator.  Mr.  Erskine  was  not  present,  and  as  yet  had 
not  signified  his  intentions  or  designs  in  view  of  the  late  pro- 
ceedings. A  committee  was  appointed  to  wait  upon  him  and 
inform  him  of  the  honor  which  had  been  conferred  upon  him. 


124  HISTORY    OF    THE 

At  this  lato  date  we  are  scarcely  able  to  come  to  a  safe  con- 
clusion as  to  the  motives  which  prompted  the  Presbyteiy  of 
Stirling,  at  this  time,  to  elect  Mr.  Erskine  its  moderator.  It 
was  certainly  imprudent,  hasty  and  uncalled  for.  Mr.  Erskine^ 
as  he  should  have  done  under  the  circumstances,  prudently  but 
promptly  declined  the  honor ;  but  the  presbytery,  for  some 
reason  best  known  to  themselves,  saw  fit  to  keep  the  chair  va- 
cant, avowedly  for  him. 

It  appears  that  there  was  a  general  desire  and  expectation 
that  the  Seceders  would  return  to  the  Established  Church,  and 
because  they  did  not  return,  they  were,  at  the  time,  severely 
censured,  even  by  those  who  had  before  been  tlieir  friends. 

The  misfortune  of  the  Secession  Fathers  was  that  they  were 
fully  a  centurj^  ahead  of  the  age  in  which  thc}^  lived.  In  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  at  the  time  of  the  secession,  the  majority 
of  the  ministers,  although  in  every  other  respect  orthodox,  en- 
tertained mistaken  notions  concerning  church  government. 
"With  them  the  jS'ational  Church  was  the  true  church,  no  mat- 
ter what  were  its  corruptions  in  doctrine  and  practice.  In 
other  words,  they  could  not  conceive  of  a  church  existing  un- 
less it  was  established  by  law.  This  being  the  case,  whatever 
chui'ch  was  established  by  law,  was,  according  to  their  mis- 
taken notions,  the  true  church,  and  all  others  were  no  churches. 

Without  saying  so  in  words,  they  declared  by  their  actions 
that  they  believed  the  General  Assembly  was  infallible,  and  con- 
sequently it  was  sinful  to  protest  against  an}-  of  its  acts,  no  mat- 
ter how  much  these  acts  might  clash  with  the  Word  and  provi- 
dence of  God.  Many  of  this  class,  perhaps  the  majority,  were 
pious;  but  unfortunately  the  doctrine  of  a  representative  re- 
public— Presbj'terianism — was  not  understood  by  them,  and 
the  notion  that  church  and  state  must  be  united  was  tirmly 
iixed  in  their  minds.  With  this  class  it  was  regarded  a  hein- 
ous sin  for  any^one  to  olFer  a  protest  against  anything  that  an 
ecclesiastical  court  might  either  do  or  say. 

For  protesting,  the  Fathers  of  the  Secession  were  rebuked, 
silenced  and  excommunicated  ;  and  when  the  way  was  opened, 
as  was  thought,  for  their  return  to  the  Established  Church  and 
they  did  not  avail  themselves  of  it,  this  party,  which  hereto- 
fore had  been  their  S3'mpathizers,  if  not  their  friends,  became 
their  avowed  enemies. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  \'2o 

Besides  the  cla^s  spoken  of  above,  tlierc  was  another,  which 
may,  with  the  utmost  ji^i-opriety,  be  named  Temporizers.  Like 
the  first  class,  this  was  the  advocate  of  a  National  Church  ;  but 
it  made  no  sort  of  difference  whether  it  Avas  Prelatic  or  Presbj-- 
terian  in  its  character.  The  former  favoyed  a  Presbyterian 
•establishment ;  the  latter  was  indifferent  as  to  the  character  of 
the  establishment.  All  that  it  desired  was  an  establishment 
favoring  Protestantism  rather  than  papacy.  This  class  was 
ever  ready  to  follow  the  multitude.  In  the  proper  sense  the}' 
Avere  time-servers.  Peace  and  unanimity  with  them  was  every- 
thing, and  purit}'  and  right  nothing.  Py  these  time-servers 
good  old  Thomas  Boston  was  prevented  from  protesting  against 
the  decision  of  the  Assembly  of  1729,  in  the  ease  of  Professor 
Simson  ;  and  they  were  the  main  instruments  in  producing  all 
the  ruptures  which  have  taken  place  in  the  Chu»ch  of  Scot- 
land. 

Whoever  will  study  carefully  all  the  circnmstances  and  facts 
■connected  with  the  Secession,  will  not  be  slow  in  concluding 
that  the*  Secession  party  could  not,  without  compromising 
themselves  and  sanctioning  all  the  errors  and  corruptions  of 
the  Established  Church,  accept  the  offer  made  to  them  by  the 
Synod  of  Perth  and  Stirling,  in  obedience  to  the  command  of 
the  Assembly.  It  is  manifest  that  either  the  Seceders  were 
wrong,  or  the  dominant  party  in  the  church  was  wrong.  If 
the  Seceders  were  wrong,  then  it  would  have  been  a  sin  on  the 
part  of  the  Established  Church  to  have  taken  them  back  with- 
out first  requiring  them  to  acknowledge  their  past  sins  and  ex- 
acting a  profession  of  obedience  for  the  future.  If  the  domi- 
nant party  was  wrong,  then  it  would  have  been  a  sin  for  the 
Seceders  to  have  returned  to  the  Established  Church,  unless 
the  leaders  of  that  church  had  confessed  their  sins  and  declared 
it  to  be  their  purpose  to  be  faithful  hereafter  in  the  work  of 
the  Lord. 

Mr.  William  Wilson  was,  for  some  time,  perplexed  as  to  his 
duty  in  reference  to  continuing  the  separation  from  the  Estab- 
lished Church.  The  other  three  of  the  Secession  Fathers  seem 
never  to  have  hesitated  in  tdieir  minds. 

Because  they  did  not  accept  the  conditions  proposed  by  the 
Assembly,  the}'  were,  in  1739,  inidividually  summoned  to  an- 
swer a  libel  which  the  Commission,  in  obedience  to  the  Assem- 


126  HISTORY    OF    THE 

bly,  had  framed.  They  appeared,  not,  liowever,  as  individ- 
uals, but  as  a  regularly  constituted  presbyter}-.  An  Act  of 
Declinature  had  been  prepared  by  appointment  of  the  Associ- 
ate Presbyterj",  by  Revs.  "Wilson,  Moncreifi'  and  Fisher.  The 
Assembly  met  on  the  10th  of  May.  On  the  17th,  the  Seceder& 
were  brought  in  by  the  officer.  They  were  preceded  by  their 
moderator,  Mr.  Thomas  Mair.  Their  entr}^  produced  ver}-  con- 
siderable stir.  So  soon  as  this  had  subsided,  the  moderator  of 
the  Assembly  tlius  addressed  them  : 

••  Although  you  are  called  here  to  answer  to  a  libel,  the  Assembly  is  very  loth 
to  be  obliged  to  proceed  upon  it;  and  if  you  offenders  will  now  show  a  disposi- 
tion to  return  to  the  duty  and  obedience  you  owe  to  this  church,  the  Assembly 
is  ready  to  forgive  all  that  is  past,  and  receive  you  with  open  arms." 

This  the  Assembly  regarded  as  a  conciliatoiy  oifer ;  but  it  is 
hard  to  discover  anything  very  pacific  in  the  language.  To 
call  a  man  an  offender  and  require  him  to  return  to  obedience, 
has  something  in  it  that  is  calculated  to  stir  up  a  spirit  of  re- 
sentment. Tlie  point  of  difference  was  that  the  Seceders  re- 
garded the  Assembly  as  offenders,  and  the  Assembly,  by  its 
parleying  with  them,  manifested  a  consciousness  of  guilt.  This, 
wrongly-  named  conciliatory  offer  having  been  made,  Mr.  Mair^ 
the  moderator  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  replied  as  follows : 

"  We  come  here  as  a  presbytery  constituted  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  King  and  Head  of  His  Church  ;  and  since  I 
am  at  present  the  moderator  of  the  presbytery,  however  insufficient  for  and  un- 
worthy of  this  trust.  I  am  appointed  as  their  mouth,  to  deliver  their  minds  unto 
you  by  reading  an  act  agreed  upon  by  the  presbytery.'' 

At  this  point  the  moderator  of  the  Assembly  immediateh' 
stopped  him  and  called  for  the  reading  of  the  libel  which  the 
Commission  of  the  Assembly  had  prepared.  So  soon  as  the 
reading  of  the  libel  was  finished,  Mr.  Mair  read  the  declina- 
ture of  the  Associate  Presbytery  and  delivered  it  to  the  mod- 
erator of  tlie  Assembly.  The  Associate  Presbytery  then  with- 
dre^\^ 

The  Assembly  ignored  the  declinature  and  appointed  a  com- 
mittee "  to  consider  the  process  as  it  now  stands,  and  to  pre- 
pare an  overture  as  to  the  Assembly's  further  procedure  there- 
in." Th'^  committee  prepared  a  report,  but  the  Assembly  de- 
layed final  action  until  the  l^th  of  May,  1740,  at  which  time- 
they  were  thrust  out  of  the  church. 


ASSOCIATE    rRESBYTERV.  12T 

Some  may  be  ready  to  conclude  that  the  Assembly  showed 
great  loDg-suttering  towards  the  Secession  Fathers,  and  that 
they  exhibited  great  stubbornness. 

AVe  will  not  undertake  to  say  that  the  Secession  Fathers 
neither  did  nor  said  anything,  during  this  parleying  period  of 
six  years,  that  was  wrong.  Xo  doubt  they  did  manj^  wrong 
things  and  gave  utterance  to  man}'  unguarded  words.  The 
majority  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  regarded 
them  schismatics  and  stigmatized  those  who  adhered  to  them  as 
stupid  people  ;  but  the  world  is  indebted  to  the  Secession  Fa- 
thers ibr  many  things.  They  had  clearer  and  more  accurately- 
defined  notions  of  Presbyterianism  than  any  of  their  contem- 
poraries. When  they  seceded  they  appealed  to  the  "  first  free, 
faithful  and  reforming  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland."  By  a  "free"  Assembly,  they  meant  an  Assembly 
that  was  untrammeled  by  the  State — an  Assembly  untainted 
with  Erastianism.  By  a  "  faithful  "  Assembly,  they  meant  an 
Assembly  whose  members  were  true  to  their  ordination  vows, 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible ;  and  hy  a 
".  reforming  "  Assembly,  they  meant  an  Assembly  that  prac- 
ticed Protestantism  in  opposition  to  Prelacy  and  Popery. 

Those  who  have  not  studied  the  causes  v/hich  led  to  the  se- 
cession, and  especial]}'  those  who  conclude  that  the  multitude 
are  always  right  and  the  minority  wrong,  have  jumped  to  the 
grossly  erroneous  conclusions  that  the  Seceders  adopted  a  form 
of  church  government  and  a  system  of  doctrine  at  variance  with 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  In  fact,  there  are  many 
at  the  present  day  who  regard  those  denominations  which  have 
sprung  immediately  from  the  Seceders  as  a  kind  of  mongrel 
Presbyterians,  who  have  framed  a  confession  of  faith  and  form 
of  church  government  different  in  all  its  grand  features  from 
that  prepared  by  the  Westminster  Assembly  and  adopted  by 
the  Church  of  Scotland.  Xothing  could  l)e  further  from  the 
truth.  No  conclusion  could  be  more  absurd.  The  AVestmins- 
ter  Confession  of  Faith  never  had  more  zealous  defenders  than 
the  first  Seceders,.  and  with  the  exception  of  that  portion  which 
treats  of  civil  magistrates,  it  is  dear  to  tlie  Associate  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Synod  of  the  South. 

It  may  be  well  to  mention,  in-'this  place,  the  fact  that  the 
Secession  Fathers  very  reluctantly  left  the  Established  Church 


128  HISTORY    OF    THE 

of  Scotland.  Had  there  been  manifested  any  signs  of  reforma- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  leaders  of  the  Establishment,  they  would 
not  have  gone  out  of  it ;  and  after  they  made  the  secession, 
had  the  church  which  tliey  loved  dearly  exhibited  any  signs 
of  true  and  godly  sorrow  on  account  of  past  ecclesiastical  sins, 
they  would  have  gladly  returned  to  the  bosom  of  the  church. 

The  simple,  unvarnished  truth  is,  the  Secession  Fathers  were 
violently  thrust  out  of  the  church  of  which  they  were  bright 
examples  of  learning  and  piety,  for  no  other  reason  than  be- 
cause they  would  not  consent  to  follow  the  multitude  to  do 
evil.  The  General  Assemblj^  first  attempted  to  awe  them  into 
an  unscriptural  submission.  This  they  failed  to  accomplish. 
The  Seceders  had  prayerfully  deliberated  before  they  acted. 
They  were  convinced  that  they  were  acting  in  conformitj-  with 
the  Scriptures.  Such  men  cannot  be  awed  into  measures,  nei- 
ther by  threats  of  viole^nce  nor  by  taunts  of  ridicule. 

Having  failed  to  frighten  them  into  measures  clearly  at  va- 
riance with  both  the  word  of  God  and  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  a  cunningly-devised  plan  was  arranged  to  lull 
the  Seceders  into  silent  subjection  by  a  system  of  wheedling 
which  would  have  done  credit  to  a  wily  politician.  This  also 
failed.  The  Secession  Fathers  were  neither  cowards  nor  fools. 
They  made  an  honest  eftbrt  to  know  the  right,  and  they  had 
the  moral  courage  to  attempt  to  do  right  in  the  face  of  the 
world.  Because  they  would  not  be  awed  into  submission  to 
ecclesiastical  tyranny,  nor  beguiled  into  silent  acquiescence  in 
unconstitutional  measures,  they  were  angrily  thrust  out  of  the 
Churcli.  So  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover,  no  eiFort  was 
made  by  the  Secession  Fathers  to  alienate  the  minds  of  either 
the  people  or  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  They 
made  no  attempt  to  proselyte.  They  did  not  persuade  the  con- 
gregations to  which  they  had  been  ministering  to  leave  the 
Established  Church  and  join  the  secession..  They  continued  to 
]^^>reach  the  gospel,  and  without  any  unscriptural  efibrt  on  their 
part,  their  hands  Avere  in  due  time  strengthened. 

In  February,  1737,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Mair,  of  Orwell,  and 
the  Rev.  Ralph  Erskine,  of  Dunfermline,  joined  the  Associate 
Presbytery.  From  the  beginning  of  the  controversy  which  led 
to  the  secession,  both  these  individuals  had  been  the  open  and 
avowed  friends  of  the  protesters.     They  were  present  when  the 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTEllY.  129 

Associate  Presb3'tery  was  organized,  and  often  after  this  met 
with  them,  consulted  with  them  and  iDra3^ed  with  them. 

In  December,  1737,  Mr.  John  Hunter  Avas  licensed  to  preach, 
the  gospel.  This  was  the  first  student  of  theology  licensed  by 
the  Associate  Presbj^tery.  John  Hunter  and  Andrew  Clark- 
son  had  for  some  time  been  engaged  in  the  study  of  theology 
under  the  Eev.  '^Villiam  Wilson ;  but  because  of  his  Cam- 
eronian  views,  Andrew  Clarkson  was  not,  at  this  time,  licensed. 
He  afterwards  satisfied  the  presbytery  and  was  licensed. 

In  October,  1737,  the  Rev.  Thomas  l>rairn  withdrew  from 
the  Established  Church  and  joined  the  secession.  John  Hun- 
ter having  received  a  call  from  the  congregations  of  Morebattle 
iind  Stitchell,  to  become  their  pastor,  was,  on  the  ]7th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1739,  ordained  and  set  apart  to  the  full  work  of  the  min- 
istry. In  January,  1740,  the  wise  Disposer  of  all  things  called 
•him  from  time  to  eternity. 

Some  of  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  were  foolish 
enough  to  say  that  the  untimely  death  of  their  first  licentiate 
indicated /that  God  was  frowning  upon  the  Secession  cause. 
Drowning  men  catch  at  straws.  As  well  might  the  Jews  have 
said  that  because  Stephen  was  stoned  to  death,  God  was  frown- 
ing upon  the  Xew  Testament  Church. 

In  June,  1738,  the  Rev.  James  Thomson,  who  had,  for  twenty 
years,  been  minister  of  the  parish  of  Burntisland,  gave  in  his 
adherence  to  the  Associate  Presbytery,  and  in  July,  1739,  the 
presbytery  was  strengthened  by  the  accession  of  Gavin  Beugo 
and  James  Mair,  probationers  of  the  Established  Church. 

The  ordained  ministers  in  connection  with  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  in  May,  1740,  when  the  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion was  passed,  were  Ebeuezer  Erskine,  William  Wilson 
Alexander  Moncrieff,  James  Fisher,  Ralph  Erskine,  Thomas 
Mair,  Thomas  I^airn  and  James  Thomson.  The  probationers 
were  Adam  Gib,  Andrew  Clarkson,  William  Hutton,  David 
Smyton,  James  Mair,  Gavin  Beugo  and  William  Young.  Two 
3'ears  afterward,  the  number  of  pastoral  charges  had  increased 
to  twenty,  with  a  proportional  increase  in  the  number  of  pro- 
bationers. 

The  earl}'  progress  of  the  Associate  Presbyter}'  was  very  re- 
markable, when  we  take  all  the  circumstances  into  considera- 
tion.    There  is  no  disguising  the  fact  that  the  secession  was, 

10 


130  .  HISTORY    or    THE 

with  men  of  the  Avorlcl,  exceedingly  unpopular.  The  multi- 
tude, both  in  church  and  state,  regarded  the  secession  as  an  act 
just  less  than  treason.  Those  who  adhered  to  the  Associate 
Presbytery  had  few  friends  among  the  great  and  influential  in 
the  state,  and  the  dominant  part}'  in  the  Established  Church 
were  their  avowed  enemies.  Xot  only  this,  but  the  ministers 
of  the  gospel  who  cast  in  their  lot  with  the  secession  party  de- 
prived themselves  of  all  state  patronage,  and  placed  themselves 
for  a  maintenance  upon  the  contributions  of  a  poor  and  de- 
spised people. 

There  are  but  few  men  Avho  have  the  moral  courage  to  do 
what  the  Secession  Fathers  did.  The  Established  Church  of 
Scotland  embraced  the  mass  of  the  Scotch  people,  and  w^as  re- 
garded with  a  degree  of  veneration  which  approaches  idolatry. 
The  fact  is,  by  the  Scotch  people  generally,  nobles  and  peas- 
ants, ministers  and  laymen,  it  was  thought  that  the  church  and 
state  were  so  intimately  and  so  inseparably  connected,  that  he 
who  dared  to  protest  against  the  actions  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, committed  a  treasonable  deed  against  the  state. 

It  is  no  doubt  proper,  in  this  place,  to  notice  the  fact  that 
for  a  period  of  four  years,  or  from  December  6,  1733,  to  Jan- 
uary 5,  1737,  there  were  no  elders  in  the  Associate  Presbytery. 
The  first  lay  elders  who  w^ere  enrolled  as  members  of  the  pres- 
bytery were  Thomas  AYatson  and  George  Dron.  During  this 
interval  the  presbytery  had  met  frequently  and  transacted  some 
very  important  business.  According  to  the  principles  of  Pres- 
byterianism,  a  presbytery  is  composed  of  all  the  pastors  within 
a  specified  territory  and  a  lay  or  ruling  elder  from  each  pas- 
toral charge.  In  order  to  be  a  presbyter  a  preaching  elder 
must  be  a  pastor.  In  order  that  a  lay  elder  may  be  entitled  to 
act  in  a  presbyterial  capacity,  he  must  be  chosen  for  that  pur- 
pose by  the  session  of  which  he  is  a  member.  A  presbytery 
cannot  be  lawfully  constituted  except  a  majority — more  than 
one-half — of  the  pastors,  and  a  majority  of  lay  representatives 
from  the  pastoral  charges  embraced  in  the  presbyterial  bounds, 
be  present.  In  the  case  of  the  Secession  Fathers,  the  presb}-- 
tery  which  they  organized  consisted  of  only  preaching  elders, 
for,  as  we  have  seen,  a  period  of  four  years. 

Although  such  was  the  case,  the  acts  of  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery were  not  invalid  ;  because,  during  that  period  they  were 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  131 

ill  a  formative  state.  Everything  must  have  a  beginning. 
There  was  a  time  in  the  historj'  of  the  congregations  organized 
by  the  apostles,  when  they  had  no  lay  or  ruling  elders.  In 
point  of  time,  and  in  the  order  of  Presbyterianism,  the  preacher 
or  evangelist  is  first ;  then  the  congregation.  The  pastor  and 
ruling  elders  are  chosen  by  the  people. 

AVe  must  not  omit  to  record  the  fact  that  shortly  after  its 
organization  the  Associate  Presbytery  turned  their  attention, 
to  educating  young  men  for  the  ministry.  They  were  at  first 
unable  to  equip  a  theological  seminary.  This  no  one  would 
have  expected.  They  began  their  work  at  the  beginning. 
They  built  upon  the  foundation  laid  by  no  man.  In  the  spring 
of  1737  the  presbytery  appointed  two  of  their  number — Ebene- 
zer  Erskine  and  Alexander  Moncrieff — to  prepare  an  overture 
with  reference  to  the  very  extensive  calls  made  to  them  for 
supplying  destitute  portions  of  the  kingdom  with  the  preached 
gospel.  After  due  deliberation,  the  following  conclusion  was, 
reached: 

■■  Therefore,  (in  view  of  the  great  destitution.)  the  committee  are  of  opinion 
that  this  presbytery  should  make  some  step  toward  the  relief  of  the  Lord's  op- 
pressed heritage,  especially  considering  the  loud  call  in  Providence  thereto,  by- 
nominating  and  appointing  one  of  their  number  to  take  the  inspection  of  the 
youth  that  should  offer  themselves  to  be  trained  up  for  the  holy  ministry,  and 
also  that  every  one  of  the  brethren  should  carefully  look  out  for  faithful  men  to 
whom  the  ministry  should  be  committed." 

The  matter  was  so  urgent  that  the  jiresbytery  proceeded  at 
once  to  the  choice  of  a  theological  professor.  The  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Wilson,  of  Perth,  was  chosen  by  the  unanimous  voice  of 
the  presb3'^tery. 

For  this  very  responsible  position  Mr.  Wilson  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimoii}^  of  both  the  friends  and  enemies  of  the 
secession,  eminently  qualified.  He  was  a  graduate  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Glasgow;  a  man  of  good  family;  of  good  natural 
abilities,  well  developed  by  a  course  of  intense  study,  which 
had  been  kept  up  since  his  early  boyhood;  and  besides  all  this, 
he  was  a  man  of  exemplaiy  piety,  loved  and  respected  by  all 
who  knew  him. 


132  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  A^II. 

IMPORTANT  FACTS  CONNECTED  WITH  THE  HISTORY  OF  ASSO- 
CIATE PRESBYTERY— Associate  Synod  Organized— Burgess  Oath— Con- 
troversy Respecting  Nairn  Difficulty — Nairn  Joins  Cameronians — Returns  to 
the  National  Church — Design  of  the  Burgess  Oath — American  Government — 
Cameronians  and  Seceders  Quarrel — Division  in  the  Associate  Synod — Anti- 
Burghers  and  Burghers — Number  of  Anti-Bui'ghers — Of  Burghers — Reunion 
and  Formation  of  the  United  Associate  Synod — Number  of  Ministers — Union 
of  Secession  Synod  of  Ireland  and  Synod  of  Ulster — Union  of  the  United 
Secession  and  Relief  Synod — Formation  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church — 
Strength  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church — Growth  of  the  Associate 
Church — Its  Missionary  Character — Call  for  Laborers  f rom_  Ireland — First 
Ministers  sent  to  America — Rev.  Gilbert  Tennant — Rev.  John  Moorhead — 
Organization  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Americn — Nativity  of  its  Min- 
isters— Congregational  Element — Old  Side  and  New  Side — Journal  of  Whit- 
field;— Belfast  Society — First  Petition  for  Preaching  in  America  by  Seced- 
ers— Alexander  Craighead — Organization  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia — 
Adopting  Act — Misunderstanding  Concerning. 

With  the  previous  chapter  we  might  conclude  the  history  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery  ;  but  some  of  its  subsequent  acts  are 
of  too  great  importance  to  be  passed  over  in  silence,  and  the}" 
have  at  least  a  remote  connection  with  the  early  history  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church. 

!No  sooner,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  Associate  Presbytery 
organized  than  it  began  to  grow.  In  fact,  notwithstanding  it 
met  with  the  determined  opposition  of  the  majority  of  the 
ministers  of  the  Established  Church,  it  flourished  beyond  the 
most  sanguine  expectations  of  its  actual  members  and  outside 
friends.  In  October,  1744,  the  number  of  ordained  ministers 
having  increased  to  twenty-six,  the  Associate  S3mod  was  or- 
ganized and  three  presbyteries  were  formed,  viz :  Presbytery 
of  Dunfermline,  Presbytery  of  Glasgow  and  Presbytery  of  Ed- 
inburgh. The  membership  increased  much  more  rapidl}^  than 
the  number  of  ihe  ministers. 

The  first  Tuesday  of  March,  1745,  was  named  as  the  da.y  for 
the  firtot  meeting  of  the  Associate  Synod,  and  Stirling  as  the 
place  at  which  it  should  convene.  In  the  "  New  Church  " — 
the  church  built  for  the  Rev.  Ebenezer  Erskine — at  the  time 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  133 

and  place  appointed,  the  Synod  met,  and  aftpr  being  consti- 
tuted Avith  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Ebenezer  Erskine,  the  Rev. 
Ralph  Erskine  was  chosen  moderator,  and  John  Reid  was  ap- 
pointed clerk.  Several  important  matters  came  up  for  con- 
sideration by  the  Synod,  but  the  most  important  was  an  over- 
ture sent  up  by  the  presb3'tery  of  Dunfermline.  The  impor- 
tance of  this  overture  consisted  not  in  its  intrinsic  merit — 
although  this  was  not  small — but  to  the  grave  results  to  which 
it,  in  a  very  short  period,  led.     The  following  is  the  overture : 

"  That  the  Synod  take  under  their  consideration  whether  or  not  the  Burgess 
oatla  be  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God  and  to  the  received  principles  of  this 
church  founded  thereupon,  and  particularly  to  those  in  the  Judicial  Act  and 
Testinaony  emitted  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  in  the  Act  relating  to  Mr.  Nairn's 
affair,  and  in  the  Act  concerning  the  renovation  of  our  covenants." 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Nairn,  whose  name  appears  in  the  above- 
rj^uoted  overture,  was,  at  the  time  of  the  secession,  pastor  of 
Abbottshall.  In  the  latter  part  of  1737,  he  joined  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  and  appeared  to  be  in  full  sympathy  with 
it.  At  the  meeting  of  the  presbytery,  in  October,  1742,  it  was 
agreed  to  make  preparation  for  renewing  the  covenants.  At 
the  same  time  that  the  covenants  were  renewed,  it  was  cus- 
tomary with  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  all  others  following 
her  example,  to  make  an  acknowledgment  of  sins.  Mr.  Xairn 
dissented  from  the  paragraph  in  the  acknowledgment  of  sin 
which  specified  the  resisting  civil  officers  and  propagating  the 
gospel  by  offensive  arms,  as  one  of  the  sins  advocated  and 
practiced  by  some  persons.  It  is  probable  that  in  this  para- 
graph reference  was  made  to  the  Cameronians.  Mr.  Xairn 
either  had  adopted  the  sentiments  of  these  good  people — but 
perhaps  extremists  in  their  notions  of  civil  government — or  at 
least  he  pretended  to  have  adopted  their  sentiments.  The  lat- 
ter appears  more  probable  ;  for  having  renounced  his  connection 
with  the  Associate  Presbytery,  he  joined  the  Cameronians,  but 
soon  left  them  and  sought  shelter  in  the  National  Church. 
After  making  a  humiliating  confession  of  his  sin  and  folly  in 
seceding  from  the  National  Church,  he  was  again  taken  into 
its  bosom. 

The  objectionable  feature  in  the  proposed  acknowle-^gment 
of  sins  was  expunged,  but  Mr.  Nairn  had  said  some  things 
during  the  debate  which  it  occasioned,  that  the  presbytery  re- 


134  HISTORY    OF    THE 

garded  as  subversive  of  all  civil  government.  These  declara- 
tions he  was  required  by  the  presbyter}'  to  retract,  or  process 
would  be  entered  against  him.  His  conscience,  he  intimated, 
would  not  allow  him  to  do  this.  Such  being  the  case,  and  the 
presbytery  being  determined  in  its  course,  Mr.  Xairn  renounced 
the  authority  of  the  presbytery,  and  as  the  first  seceders  had 
done  before  him,  appealed  to  the  first  faithful  reforming  eccle- 
siastical court. 

The  unfortunate  afi:air  Avhich  we  are  about  to- mention  had 
its  origin  in  a  condition  of  things  that  never  had  an  existence 
in  America,  and,  consequently,  cannot  be  well  appreciated  by 
Americans.  It  paved  the  way  for  two  results  much  to  be  re- 
gretted. One  of  these  results  was  the  arraying  of  the  Seceders 
and  Cameronians  against  each  other  in  bitter,  and,  we  ma}' 
add,  avowed  hostility.     The  other  was  a  rent  in  the  secession. 

Mr.  Andrew  Clarkson,  who  had  been  in  connection  with  the 
Cameronians,  joined  the  Associate  Presbyter}'  in  1787.  He 
had  finished  his  theological  course  of  studies  several  years  be- 
fore this  period,  but  because  these  people  had  no  ecclesiastical 
organization,  had  not  been  licensed  to  preach.  He  was,  after 
due  deliberation  and  much  caution,  licensed  by  the  Associate 
Presbyter}'  to  make  trial  of  his  gifts  as  a  minister  of  the 
gospel. 

The  Cameronians,  or  "  Hill  folk,"  denounced  Mr.  Clarkson 
after  this  as  a  vile  backslider,  and  the  Seceders  applied  the 
same  opprobrious  epithet  to  Mr.  l^airn.  The  breach  between 
the  Associates  and  Cameronians  was  thus  widened  and  deei> 
ened,  and  remains  in  part  unto  tins  day.  This  was  greatly  to 
be  deplored,  but  the  division  which  took  place  in  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  was  to  be  more  regretted. 

That  an  American  may  understand  the  cause  of  this  division, 
he  must  acquaint  himself  with  a  state  of  things  which,  in  the 
good  providence  of  God,  he  has  never  been  called  to  experience. 
Americans  enjoy  a  degree  of  religious  freedom  which  no  nation 
except  God's  ancient  people,  the  Jews,  ever  enjoyed.  In  our 
favored  land  every  man  is  guaranteed  the  privilege  of  worship- 
ping God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  and 
no  one  dare  molest  him  in  the  enjoyment  of  this  right.  All 
the  restraint  that  is  put  upon  him  is  that  he  must  not  infringe 
upon  the  rights  of  others. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  135 

In  Scotland,  at  the  time  of  the  secession,  the  sovereign  of 
England  was,  in  a  limited  but  practical  sense;  the  head  of  the 
•Church  of  Scotland.  Without  the  presence  of  the  King's  com- 
missioner the  General  Assembly  could  not  be  lawfully  con- 
vened, and  the  withdrawal  of  this  roj'al  commissioner  was 
sufficient  cause  for  its  being  dissolved.  In  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, Jesus  Christ  was  theoretically  the  king  and  head  of  the 
church  ;  in  its  government,  however,  the  headship  of  the  church 
was  practically  divided  between  Jesus  and  the  Sovereign  of 
Great  Britain. 

From  this  unscriptural  practice,  both  the  Cameronians  and 
the  Seceders  dissented.  In  part,  at  least,  it  constrained  the 
Cameronians  to  stand  aloof  from  the  Established  Church,  when, 
in  1688,  it  was  reorganized ;  and  on  account  of  it,  in  part,  the 
Seceders  severed  their  connection  with  the  same  church.  Both 
were  jealous  of  what  they  conceived  to  be  the  crown  rights  of 
Jesus  Christ.  As  was  natural,  they  sometimes  did  not  agree 
among  themselves.  The  Seceders  regarded  the  Cameronians 
as  ultra  in  their  notions  in  respect  to  civil  government ;  and 
on  the  contrar}',  the  Cameronians  regarded  the  Seceders  as 
latitudinarian  in  their  notions  concerning  the  rights  and  pre- 
rogatives of  civil  magistrates. 

The  consequences  of  this  diversity  of  opinion  between  the 
Seceders  and  Cameronians  respecting  the  extent  of  the  powers 
of  civil  magistrates,  was  surely  bad  enough  ;  but  it  was  much 
worse  when  diversity  of  opinion  on  this  same  subject  sprung 
up  among  the  Seceders  themselves.  A  war  between  strangers 
is  a  great  calamity,  and  earnestly  to  be  deprecated  b}'  every 
right-minded  man  ;  but  what  language  is  sufficient  even  faintly 
to  depict  the  field  made  crimson  by  a  brother's  blood  shed  bj' 
a  brother's  hand  ?  All  quarrels  are  morally  ugly  things  ;  but 
nothing  can  be  more  revolting,  or  more  to  be  deplored,  than  a 
family  broil. 

Such  a  broil  was  begun  b}'  the  members  of  the  Secession 
Synod,  in  March,  1745,  at  Stirling— its  first  meeting — and  con- 
tinued with  much  warmth  for  a  period  of  two  years,  and 
finally  resulted  in  the  division  »>f  the  Synod  into  Burghers  and 
Anti-Burghers. 

The  dispute  was  about  the  consistency  of  the  members  of  the 
Secession  Church  takins-  a  clause  in  a  certain  oath. 


136  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  object  lor  which  this  oath  seems  to  have  been  framed^ 
when  viewed  witli  an  unprejudiced  eye,  was  to  prevent  Eoman 
Catholics  from  becoming  citizens  of  Edinburgh,  Glasgow  and 
Perth,  and  other  royal  towns. 

Since  these  places  were  burghs  or  boroughs,  the  citizens  were 
called  burghers  or  burgesses,  and  the  oath  which  caused  so 
much  disturbance  in  the  Secession  Church  was  called  the 
Burgher  oath.  The  following  is  the  clause  about  which  the 
controversy  arose :  "  Here  I  protest  before  God  and  your  lord- 
ship that  I  profess  and  allow  with  my  heart,  the  true  religion 
presently  professed  within  this  realm,  and  authorized  by  the 
laws  thereof;  I  shall  abide  thereat  and  defend  the  same  unto 
my  life's  end  ;  renouncing  the  Roman  religion  called  Papistry." 

The  parties  disagreed  respecting  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
"  the  true  religion  presently  professed  within  this  realm  and 
authorized  b}'  the  laws  thereof."  One  part  claimed  that  these 
words  meant  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  from  which 
they  had  lately  withdrawn,  and  to  swear  the  King's  oath  was 
to  stultifj^  themselves  and  abandon  their  testimony.  The  other 
party  claimed  that  b}'  "  the  true  religion  presently  professed 
within  this  realm  "  was  meant  the  Presbyterian  Church  with- 
out its  corruptions,  and  as  opposed  to  Papistry.  This  party 
was  opposed  to  the  Synod's  saying,  by  a  judicial  act,  that  the 
taking  of  this  oath  was  a  transgression  of  law  and  order  worthy 
of  excommunication.  Tlie  other  party  pleaded  that  there  should 
be  neither  ministerial  nor  Christian  communion  with  those 
wdio  should  take  it. 

The  difference,  at  first  small,  grew  rapidly,  and  in  the  short 
space  of  two  j^ears  assumed  huge  proportions. 

The  debates  were  many  and  fierce,  and  those  who  had  but  a 
short  time  ago  stood  side  by  side  in  opposing  the  corruptions 
of  the  Established  Church,  now  became  as  warmly  opposed  to 
each  other. 

On  the  9th  of  April  the  Synod  was  rent  in  twain.  That  part 
which  was  opposed  to  taking  the  Burgher  oath  organized  them- 
selves on  the  following  day  into  a  Synod  which  they  called  the 
General  Associate  Synod,  generally  known  as  Anti-Burghers. 

The  other  part  retained  the  original  name.  Associate  Synod,. 
but  in  ecclesiastical  history  tliey  are  generally  called  Burghers. 

At  the  time  this  rupture  took  place  the  Secession  Church 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  13T 

numbered  thirty-three  ministers,  nineteen  of  whom  espoused 
the  Anti-Burgher  side  oi  the  question,  and  fourteen  the  Burgh- 
er side. 

Xo  doubt  the  enemies  of  the  secession — and  they  were  not 
few — now  conchided  that  it  would  not  be  long  before  the  Se- 
eeders  would  return  to  the  jS^ational  Church,  confess  their  sins, 
be  rebuked,  and  received  back  as  prodigal  sons  into  the  bosom 
of  the  church.  Such,  however,  was  not  the  case.  For  a  pe- 
riod of  seventy -three  years  they  remained  separate  organiza- 
tions. At  half  past  twelve  o'clock,  on  Friday,  the  8th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1820,  the  two  Synods  met  in  Bristo-street  Church  and 
united  into  one  body,  which  they  appropriately  named  The 
UxiTED  Associate  Syxod  of  the  Secession  Ciiukcii. 

At  this  time  there  were  in  connection  with  the  Burgher 
Synod  one  hundred  and  thirty-nine  ministers,  and  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
three.  On  the  8th  of  April,  1840,  the  Secession  Synod  of  Ire- 
land and  the  Synod  of  Ulster  united  and  formed  The  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  Ireland.,  and  on  the  loth  of  May,  1847,  a  union 
Avas  consummated  in  Edinburgh  between  the  United  Secession 
Synod  and  the  Relief  S3-nod,  forming  what  is  known  as  The 
United  Presbyterian  Church. 

In  less  than  one  hundred  years  the  Associate  Presbytery 
grew  from  one  small  Presbj^ter}^  of  four  members  to  twenty- 
two  Presb3'teries,  having  under  their  care  three  hundred  and 
sixty-one  congregations,  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  thousand 
communicants,  and  a  population  of  nearly  three  hundred  thou- 
sand. This  does  not  include  those  in  America,  who  adhered  to 
the  principles  and  practices  of  the  Secession  Fathers.  When 
the  union  which  formed  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  was 
consummated,  the  united  body  had  the  oversio;ht  of  five  hun- 
dred and  four  congregations,  which  were  divided  into  twenty- 
eight  presbyteries.  Sixty  of  these  congregations  w^ere  in  Eng- 
land, and  four  hundred  and  forty-four  in  Scotland.  This 
growth,  although  not  so  rapid  as  has  been  experienced  by  some 
other  denominations  of  Christians,  still,  when  everything  is 
considered,  it  is  a  most  marvelous  increase. 

It  is  a  fact  universally  admitted  that  Seceders  have  ever  been 
regarded  as  austere  in  their  manners,  and  rigidl}^  strict  in  their 
discipline.     However  much  time  and  circumstances  have  ef- 


188  HISTORY    OF    THE 

fected  in  removing  their  austerity  of  manners  and  lowering 
their  standard  of  discipline,  it  is  a  fact  well  attested  that  there 
was  a  time  in  the  past  histor}^  of  Secederism  when  it  was  no 
■easy  matter  to  be  admitted  into  full  membership  in  the  Se- 
ceder  Church  ;  and  it  was  by  no  means  difficult  to  lose  it  when 
once  obtained.  Kot  only  so,  but  the  doctrines  taught  and  in- 
sisted upon  by  the  Associate  I'resbyter}-  were  at  that  time  un- 
popular and  ever  will  be  unpopular  with  the  mass  of  mankind. 
In  no  Ijranch  of  the  church,  which,  directly  or  indirectly,  in 
part  or  in  whole,  is  descended  from  the  Associate  Presbyter}', 
is  there  anything  that  is  calculated  to  captivate  hy  its  glare 
the  multitude.  The  character  of  tlie  pulpit  exercises,  and  all 
the  forms  of-  private  and  public  worship  are  at  the  farthest  re- 
move from  everything  that  savors  of  form. 

We  are  not,  however,  to  conclude  that  the  Associate  Church 
grew  as  by  miracle,  without  any  effort  on  the  part  of  those 
who  adopted  its  principles  and  practices.  ]S"o  denomination  of 
of  Ch  ristians  did  more  missionary  work.  No  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel since  the  days  of  Paul,  could,  with  more  propriety,  adopt  his 
language  and  say  they  had  '•  striven  in  all  things  to  commend 
themselves  as  ministers  of  God,  in  much  patience,  in  afflictions, 
in  necessities,  in  distresses,  in  stripes,  in  imprisonments,  in  tu- 
mults, in  labors,  in  watchings  and  in  fastings,"  than  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Secession  Church. 

The  first  sound  that  greeted  their  ears  after  their  organiza- 
tion into  a  presbytery,  was  the  Macedonian  entreaty,  "  Come 
over  and  help  us !"  From  its  very  beginning,  the  Associate 
Presbytery  engaged  in  stupendous  missionary  labors.  In  the 
providence  of  God  the}-  were  forced  to  engage  in  missionary, 
labors  to  an  extent  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  Pres- 
byterianism  before  or  since.  In  the  year  1737,  application  was 
made  to  the  presbyter}'  by  twenty-three  societies  to  be  taken 
under  their  care  and  supplied  with  the  public  means  of  grace. 
During  the  next  year,  by  forty-eight  societies.  As  early  as 
1736,  a  number  of  families  in  Lisburn,  Ireland,  recpiested  that 
some  one  would  be  sent  by  the  Presbytery  to  labor  among 
them. 

It-  is,  however,  with  the  mission  labors  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  in  America  that  we  are  more  interested.  AVith 
eminent  propriety  and  exact  truthfulness,  it  may  be  said  that 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  139 

the  Associate  Reformed  Church  is  the  result  of  missionarj^ 
labors  begun  and  carried  on  by  the  Associate  and  Reformed 
Presbyteries  of  Scotland  and  Ireland. 

The  first  ministers  sent  to  America  by  the  Secession  Church 
was  in  1753.  This  was  after  the  division  into  Burghers  and 
Anti-Burghers.  Long  before  this,  however,  petitions  had  been 
addressed  to  the  presbytery  by  persons  residing  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. The  first  formal  correspondence,  so  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  discover,  between  persons  in  America  and  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  w^as  in  1738.  On  the  20th  of  June  of  that  year, 
the  Rev.  Gilbert  Tennant,  by  the  direction  of  the  members  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Xew  Brunswick,  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery,  in  which  the  'New  Brunswick  Presbytery 
"  signified  its  hearty  approbations  of  the  seceding  ministers." 
This  letter  was  laid  before  the  Associate  Presbytery  in  August 
of  the  same  year.  About  the  same  time,  the  Rev.  Ralph  Ers- 
kine  received  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Muirhead  (or  Moorhead) 
pastor  of  the  "  Church  of  Presbyterian  Strangers,"  in  Boston. 
The  following  very  remarkable  sentences  occur  in  Mr.  Moore- 
head's  letter : 

"  Go  on,  blessed  champions,  in  the  cause  of  God.  Your  trials  are  not  greater 
than  those  of  Zinzendorf,  Whitfield,  Tennant,  and  the  poor,  unworthy  instru- 
ment that  is  now  writing  to  you.  W^e  must  have  thorns  lest  we  be  exalted  above 
measure.  All  that  will  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus  must  suffer  persecution.  The 
more  of  this  if  submitted  to  with  gospel  meekness,  our  crown,  though  sullied 
here  by  rebels  to  God  and  their  own  good,  will  shine  the  brighter  through  eter- 
nity." 

It  may  appear  strange  that  Gilbert  Tennant  and  John  Moor- 
head should,  at  so  early  a  period,  open  a  correspondence  with 
the  Associate  Presbytery.  When  the  facts  are  all  known,  this 
strangeness  vanishes  away. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  was  organized  in  America  perhaps 
in  the  latter  part  of  1705  or  early  part  of  1706.  The,  organiza- 
tion was  given  the  name  of  "  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia." 
Four  of  its  seven  members  were  from  Ireland,  two  from  Scot- 
land, and  one  a  native  of  Kew  England.  In  1716  the  denomi- 
nation had  so  increased  that  it  was  deemed  advisable  toorgan- 
c^iie  four  other  Presbyteries,  viz :  The  Presbyteiy  of  Philadel- 
phia, the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  the  Presbytery  of  Snow 
Hill,  and  the  Presbytery  of  Long  Island.  At  the  same  time 
these  four  Presbyteries  were  constituted  into  a  Synod,  called 


140  HISTORY    OF    THE 

the  S^-nocl  of  Philadelphia,  i^ot  long  before  this  time  a  num- 
ber of  congregations,  with  their  pastors,  in  the  Jerse\'s  and 
Long  Island,  had  connected  themselves  with  the  Presbj-tcrian 
Church.  These  congregations  were  originally  Cougregation- 
alists,  and  although  they  formally  connected  themselves  with 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  they,  at  least  in  part,  retained  their 
congregational  notions  on  some  important  points.  By  them 
the  numerical  strength  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination  in 
America  was  increased,  but  its  harmony  and  peace  were  greatly 
disturbed.  It  was  not  long  until  there  were  two  conflicting- 
parties  in  the  church.  One  was  called  the  "  Old  Side,"  and  the 
other  the  "  Xew  Side."'  It  is  true  that  the  Congregational 
element  had  little  to  do  with  the  controversies  engaged  in  be- 
tween the  "  Old  Side  ''  and  the  "  ]S'ew  Side  "  parties.  It  was,, 
however,  the  little  leaven  wdnch,inl837,had  permeated  nearly 
one-half  of  the  whole  denomination. 

The  "  Old  Side  "  and  the  "  iSTew  Side"  controversy  was  mainly 
about  "  subscribing,"  as  it  was  called,  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith ;  not  as  a  whole,  but  particularly  with  refer- 
ence to  the  ordination  of  ministers.  It  is  possible,  nay  it  is- 
highly  probable,  that  the  parties  did  not  clearly  understand 
each  other.  The  "  Xew  Side""  party  charged  the  "Old  Side" 
with  rigidly  rerpiiring  a  candidate  for  ordination  to  subscribe 
the  whole  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the  chapters- 
on  civil  government  included.  The  "  Old  Side  "'  party  was  also 
charged  with  requiring  the  candidate  for  ordination  to  be 
thoroughly  educated,  but  at  the  same  time  they  manifested  a 
culpable  indifference  with  regard  to  his  piety.  The  "  Old  Side  " 
party  charged  the  "ISTew  Side'/'  with  having  little  respect  to 
the  candidate's  intellectual  and  educational  qualifications,  pro- 
vided he  was  pious. 

This  was  the  beginning  of  the  controversy ;  but  soon  other 
things  were  dragged  into  it,  and  that  which  at  first  was  a  mere 
speck  in  the  horizon,  became  a  black  and  angry  cloud,  wliich^ 
in  the  language  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Cross,  "  endangered  the- 
very  existence  of  the  infant  church." 

Previous  to  the  year  1700  there  were,  in  all  the  territory 
now  embraced  in  the  United  States,  not  more  than  twenty 
Presbyterian  ministers,  and  all  of  these,  except  six,  were  in  the 
Xew  England  States.      In  Xew  England  Congregationalism 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  141 

then  as  now  prevailed,  and  gave  shape  and  coloring  to  every- 
thing. Several  of  the  Presbj-terian  preachers  seem  to  have 
had  no  immediate  connection  with  an}'  presbytery.  This  was 
the  case  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina.  In  the  "  White  Meet- 
ing House,"  Presbyterians  of  English,  Irish  and  Scotch  descent, 
and  Xew  England  and  Old  England  Congregationalists,  wor- 
shipped together  in  harmony  and  peace,  having  for  twentv 
years  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

Facts  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  had  its  origin  in  a  blending  of  Irish  Pres- 
byterianism  and  English  Congregationalists,  together  with  a 
slight  mixture  of  Scotch  Presbyterians.  In,  perhaps,  all  the 
American  colonies  there  were,  at  this  time,  a  very  considerable 
number  of  the  population  who  adhered  to  the  more  rigid  fea- 
tures of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  in  several  of  the  colonies 
there  were  a  few  who  embraced,  with  all  their  hearts,  the  po- 
litical and  religious  notions  held  b}' Cameron,  Cargill  and  Ren- 
wick.  To  both  of  these  classes  the  manner  in  which  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  was  organized  in  America  was  not  agreeable, 
xmd  very  soon  afterward  they  began  to  look  with  anxious  hopes 
for  relief  by  means  of  the  party  in  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
which  was  protesting  against  the  patronage  system.  In  fact, 
a  very  respectable  number  of  persons,  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  secession  doctrine,  had  come  to  America  several  years  be- 
fore the  secession  actually  took  place.  Soon  after  the  secession 
was  accomplished,  a  number  of  families  in  connection  with  the 
Associate  Presbytery,  both  in  Scotland  and  Ireland,  came  to 
America.  Some  of  these  families  settled  in  South  Carolina, 
some  in  J^orth  Carolina,  some  in  Virginia,  some  in  several  of 
the  ISTew  England  States ;  but,  perhaps,  the  greater  part  of  them 
fixed  their  abode  in  Pennsylvania.  Between  these  families  and 
their  friends  in  Ireland  and  Scotland,  a  correspondence  was 
kept  up,  so  that  in  this  private  way  those  in  America  were  in- 
formed of  what  was  transpiring,  both  in  Church  and  State,  in 
the  mother  country,  and  those  in  Ireland  and  Scotland  gained 
similar  information  respecting  afiairs  in  America. 

In  1739,  the  celebrated  preacher,  George  AVhitfield,  made 
the  following  entry  in  his  journal  respecting  the  elder  William 
Tennant : 


142  HISTORY    OF    THE 

"  He  keeps  an  academy  about  twenty  miles  from  Philadelphia  and  has  been 
blessed  with  four  gracious  sons,  three  of  which  have  been,  and  still  continue  to 
be,  eminently  useful  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  *  *  *  He  is  a  great  friend  of 
Mr.  Erskine,  of  Scotland,  and  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  both  he  and  his  sons  are  se- 
cretly despised  by  the  generality  of  the  synod  (Philadelphia)  as  Mr.  Erskine 
and  his  friends  are  hated  by  the  judicatories  of  Edinburgh." 

It  is  a  well-attested  fact  that  Arianism,  about  the  time  that 
the  Associate  Presbj^tery  was  organized,  began  to  crop  out  in 
the  Synod  of  Ulster,  Ireland.  In  1705,  the  Belfast  Society 
was  organized.  Its  acknowledged  leaders  were  the  Eevs.  John 
Abernethy  and  James  Kirkpatrick,  both  of  whom  had  been 
fellow  students  with  the  Rev.  John  Simson,  professor  of  divini- 
ty in  the  University  of  Glasgow.  John  Abernethy  was  a  man 
of  fine  attainments,  of  unbounded  ambition,  and  every  way 
qualified  to  be  the  leader  of  a  [larty  setting  forth  strange  and 
anti-Presbytcrian  doctrines  and  practices.  This  Arian  party 
continued  to  exercise  very  considerable  influence  in  the  Church 
of  Ireland  for  a  period  of  more  than  one  hundred  years.  Tho 
final  contest  was  made  in  1829,  in  which  struggle  Dr.  Cook 
was  the  leader  of  the  orthodox  part}',  and  the  Rev.  Henry 
]\Iontgomery  of  the  Arians.  The  Church  of  God  was  dis- 
turbed b}'  these  errorists  in  England,  Ireland,  Scotland  and 
America,  and  by  them  good  men,  such  as  John  Wesley,  Ebe- 
nezer  Erskine,  the  Tennants — father  and  sons — John  Moorhead 
and  Alexander  Craighead,  "  were  secretly  hated."  There  is 
little  doubt  but  Arianism  and  anti-Presbyterian  notions  had 
much  to  do  in  originating  and  keeping  up  the  correspondence 
between  the  Associate  Presb3'tery  and  AVilliam  Tennant  and 
John  Moorhead. 

In  nearly  every  one  of  the  thirteen  American  colonies  there 
were  a  few  persons  who  were  ready  to  afliliate  with  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  so  soon  as  it  was  organized.  The  first  formal 
request  that  the  Associate  Presbytery  received  from  persons  in 
America  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  was  in  1742.  The 
probability  is  that  this  petition  was  presented  in  the  early  part 
of  the  year,  and  that  it  had  been  prepared  in  1741.  It  came 
from  persons  in  Chester  county,  Pennsjdvania.  As  an  evidence 
of  their  earnestness,  they  "  request  the  Presbytery  to  send 
them  either  an  ordained  minister  or  a  probationer."  They 
also. promise  "to  defray  all  the  necessary  charges  of  the  mis- 
sion."    This  was  only  about  seven  years  after  the  organization 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  143 

of  the  Associate  Presbyteiy,  and  only  two  years  after  the  se- 
cession ministers  were  thrust  out  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 
The  demands  made  upon  the  Presbytery  from  various  portions 
of  Ireland  and  Scotland  Avere  many,  and  so  pressing  that  the 
petition  from  America  could  not  be  o;ranted.  All  that  the 
Presbytery  could  at  this  time  do  was  "  to  write  a  friendly  let- 
ter to  their  friends  beyond  the  Atlantic." 

It  is  probable  that  a  correspondence  was  kept  up  regularly 
with  the  people  of  Londonderry,  Chester  county,  Pa.,  but  the 
next  application  "  for  sermon  ''  was  in  1751. 

It  is  rather  remarkable  tliat  this  application  should  be  made- 
b}'  the  Rev.  Alexander  Craighead,  a  member  of  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  and  afterwards  pastor  of  Sugar  Creek  congrega- 
tion, in  Mecklenburg  county,  IST.  C.  The  explanation  is  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Craighead  and  a  number  of  other  ministers  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  were  dissatisfied  with 
man}'  things  connected  with  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
America.  "Whether  this  dissatisfaction  was  well  founded  or 
no*:,  is  a  matter  with  which  we  are  not  at  present  further  con- 
cerned than  to  account  for  the  correspondence,  which  sprung 
up  between  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Scotland  and  several 
individuals  in  connection  w^itli  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
America. 

The  early  history  of  what  is  now  known  as  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  America  is  involved  in  ver}^  great  obscurity.  The 
exact  date  of  the  arrival  of  the  first  Presbyterian  minister  is 
not  certainly  known.  Previous  to  1700  there  were  but  few 
organized  congregations,  and  only  a  few  ministers.  These 
were  scattered  over  an  immense  tract  of  country  from  Charles- 
ton, S.  C,  to  Boston,  Mass.  The  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia 
was,  as  has  been  elsewhere  stated,  organized  either  in  tl^e  early 
part  of  the  year  1706,  or  in  the  latter  part  of  1705.  In  1716 
the  Presbyter^"  of  Philadelphia  having  increased  greatly  in 
numbers,  it  was  determined  to  divide  it  into  four  })resbyteries, 
and  these  to  form  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  in  1729,  what 
(Was  called  the  "Adopting  Act"  was  passed.  This  act,  or  parts 
of  it,  gave  great  oftense  to  some  persons.  One  party  in  the 
church  regarded  it,  or  at  least  one  clause  or  expression  in  it,  as 
too  loose,  and  another  party  looked  upon  the  general  tenor  of 
the  act  as  demandino-  too  much. 


144  HISTORY    OF    THE 

It  is  most  evident  that  at  that  period,  and  for  several  years 
previons,  there  was  much  diversity  of  opinion  among  the  Pres- 
byterians respecting  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 
This  was  natural,  and  to  be  expected,  from  the  character  and 
■circumstances  of.  the  persons  forming  the  organization.  Some 
were  Scotch,  some  Irish,  some  Welsh,  some  English,  and  some 
were  from  the  continent  of  Europe.  There  was  a  very  great 
similarity  in  their  modes  of  worship  and  formulas  of  doctrine. 
Still  they  were  in  many  things  very  dissimilar.  They  were 
generally  Calvinists  and  nearly  all  Presbyterians.  Still  Eng- 
lish Presbyterianism  dift'ered  as  much  from  Scotch  Presb}-- 
terianism  as  either  did  from  Episcopacy.  The  larger  number - 
of  Puritans  who  settled  Kew  England  were  English  Presby- 
terians, yet  so  much  did  they  differ  from  Scotch  Presbyterians, 
■that  the  Puritans  have  all  been  regarded  as  Congregationalists. 

In  an  organization  composed  of  materials  so  much  alike, 
and  yet  so  unlike,  perfect  harmony  could  not  at  first  be  ex- 
pected. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod,  in  1728,  an  overture  was  pre- 
sented in  writing  having  reference  to  the  subscribing  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith.  On  the  second  day  of  tlie  meeting  of  the 
Synod,  in  1729,  a  committee  was  appointed  "to  draw  up  an 
overture  upon"  this  overture.  This  committee  reported  on  the 
next  da3^  "  After  long  debating"  this  "  overture  of  the  com- 
mittee was  adopted."  There  is  no  denying  the  fact  that  the 
adoption  of  this  overture  was  offensive  to  many  in  the  denom- 
ination.    The  following  is  the  overture: 

'•Although  the  Synod  do. not  claim  or  pretend  to  any  authority  of  imposing 
our  faith  upon  other  men's  consciences,  but  do  profess  our  just  dissatisfaction 
with,  and  abhorence  of  such  impositions,  and  do  utterly  disclaim  all  legislative 
power,  and  authority  in  the  church,  being  willing  to  receive  one  another  as 
Christ  has  received  us,  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  admit  to  fellowship,  in  sacred 
ordinances,  all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to  believe  Christ  will  at  last  admit  to 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  yet  we  are  undoubtedly  obliged  to  take  care  that  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  be  kept  pure  and  uncorrupt  among  us.  and  so 
handed  down  to  our  posterity  ;  and  do  therefore  agree  that  all  the  ministers  of 
this  Synod,  or  that  shall  hereafter  be  admitted  into  this  Synod,  shall  declare 
their  agreement  in,  and  approbation  of,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  with  the  Larger 
and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  as  being  in 
all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles,  good  forms  of  sound  words  and  systems 
of  Christian  doctrines,  and  do  also  adopt  the  said  Confession  and  Catechisms 
as  the  confession  of  oiir  faith.     And  we  do  also  agree  that  all  the  presbyteries 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  145 

"Within  our  bounds  shall  always  take  care  not  to  admit  any  candidate  of  the  min- 
istry into  the  exercise  of  the  sacred  function  but  what  declares  his  agreement  in 
opinion  with  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  said  Confession,  either  by 
subscribing  the  said  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  or  by  verbal  declara- 
tion of  their  assent  thereto  as  such  minister  or  candidate  shall  think  best.  And 
in  case  any  minister  of  this  Synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry,  shall  hare 
any  scruples  with  respect  to  any  article  or  articles  of  said  Confession  or  Cate- 
chisms, he  shall,  at  the  time  of  his  making  said  declarations,  declare  his  senti- 
ments to  the  presbytery  or  synod,  who  shall,  notwithstanding,  admit  him  to  the 
exercise  of  the  ministry  within  our  bounds,  and  to  ministerial  communion,  if 
the  synod  or  presbytery  shall  judge  his  scruples  or  mistake  to  be  only  about 
articles  not  essential  and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship  or  government.  But  if 
the  synod  or  presbytery  shall  judge  such  ministers  or  candidates  erroneous  in 
essential  and  necessary  articles  of  faith,  the  synod  or  presbytery  shall  declare 
them  incapable  of  communion  with  them.  And  the  Synod  do  solemnly  agree 
that  none  of  us  will  traduce  or  use  any  opprobrious  terms  of  those  that  differ 
from  us  in  these  extra-essential  and  not  necessary  points  of  doctrine,  but  treat 
them  with  the  same  friendship,  kindness  and  brotherly  love  as  if  they  had  not 
differed  from  us  in  such  sentiments."' 

It  is  most  manifest  that  this  overture,  which  was  agreed  upon 
by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  in  the  very  words  above  cited,  and 
is  usually  called  "  The  Adopting  Act,"  was  an  attempt  at  a  com- 
promise between  parties  entertaining  conflicting  opinions  with 
respect  to  the  doctrines  and  form  of  church  government  con- 
tained in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 

33y  the  passage  of  this  overture,  the  strict  Presbyterian  party 
claimed  a  victory ;  but  really  it  is  difficult  to  see  in  vrhat  this 
victory  consisted.  It,  together  with  other  enactments,  led  to  a 
rupture,  in  1741 ;  and  the  division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
into  Old  School  and  ]^ew  School,  in  1837,  may  be  traced  back 
to  this  Adopting  Act  of  1729. 

These  unfortunate  misunderstandings  among  the  members  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  led  directl}^  to  a  corres- 
pondence between  some  of  the  dissatisfied  parties  and  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Scotland.  Notwithstanding  all  this, 
when  the  Associate  Presbytery  sent  missionaries  to  America, 
they,  as  we  shall  see,  were  not  received  by  either  party  with 
even  the  social  courtesies  which  are  shown  by  one  gentleman 
to  another. 


11 


1-46  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

GELLATLY  AND  ARNOT  COME  TO  AMERICA— Their  Instructions— Seceder- 
Societies — Hume  and  Jainieson  Appointed  to  go  to  America — Andrew  Bun-  • 
yan  deprived  of  his  License — Good  Effect — Condition  of  America  in  1751 — 
Bunyan  Restored — Apostolic  plan,  ''by  two  and  two" — Gellatly  and  Arnot 
Solicited  to  join  the  Presbyterian  Church — Stigmatized  as  Schismatics— 
AVarning  Published — Delop's  Pamphlet — Controversy  about  the  Nature  of 
Faith  and  the  Gospel  OffeiJ — Ralph  Erskine's  View — Finley  and  Smith  and 
Gellatly  and  Arnot  Controversy — Mr.  Gellatly  Settles  as  Pastor — Arnot  Re- 
turns to  Scotland — James  Proudfoot  Arrives  in  America — Settles  at  Pequa — 
Removes  to  Salem — Mission  Station  of  Associate  Synod — Matthew  Hender- 
son Comes  to  America — Settles  at  Oxford — John  Mason.  Robert  Annan  and 
John  Smart  Come  to  America — Mason  Settles  in  New  York  ;  Annan  at  Marsh 
Creek — Smart  Returns  to  Scotland — AVilliam  Marshall  Comes  to  America — 
Receives  Three  Calls — Occasions  a  Ditficulty  in  the  Presbytery — Mr.  Hen- 
derson Dissents — Mr.  Marshall  Settles  at  Deep  Run. 

The  first  Associate  ministers  who  came  to  America  were  the 
Revs.  Alexander  Gellatly  and  Andrew  Arnot,  both  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Anti-Bnrgher  Synod  of  Scotland.  They  set  sail 
for  America  in  the  beginnins^  of  the  summer  of  1753,  and  ar- 
rived in  Pennsylvania  sometime  before  the  close  of  the  same 
year.  According  to  the  instrnc^^^ion  given  them  by  the  judica- 
tory to  which  they  belonged,  they  immediately  on  arriving  in 
the  ]^ew  World,  proceeded  to  organize  themselves  into  a  pres- 
bytery. The  tenor  of  these  instructions  was  that  they,  to- 
gether wHth  two  ruling  elders,  sliould  constitute  themselves 
into  a  presbj'tery  under  the  title  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsjdvania,  and  that  as  soon  as  practicable,  they  should  or- 
o:anize  two  cono-reo-ations,  each  haviuij;  its  own  bench  of  ruling 
elders.  They  were  further  instructed  not  to  admit  any  to  the 
office  of  ruling  elder  who  had  not  examined  and  approved  the 
standards  of  the  Secession  Church,  and  who  did  not  possess  the 
scriptural  qualifications  for  that  sacred  office. 

Although,  so  far  as  is  known,  there  is  no  record  to  show  that 
previous  to  the  arrival  of  Messrs.  Gr-ellatly  and  Arnot,  there 
w^ere  in  America  any  ruling  elders  in  connection  with  the  Se- 
cession Church  of  Scotland,  it  is  very  probable  there  were  sev- 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  14T 

eral.  The  Seceders,  like  the  Covenanters,  formed  themselves 
into  societies  so  soon  as  they  came  to  America.  These  socie- 
ties general!}',  if  not  always,  were  under  the  supervision  of  a 
ruling  elder.  Xot  only  so,  but  these  societies  were,  like  the 
Scotch  congregations,  divided  into  "  quarters,"  or,  more  cor- 
rectly, into  sections,  and  a  quarter  or  section  assigned  to  each 
ruling  elder.  Over  his  quarter  a  ruling  elder  exercised  a  gen- 
eral supervision,  and  performed  much  that  is  now  denominated 
pastoral  duty.  He  visited  the  sick,  catechised  and  instructed 
the  children,  comforted  the  afflicted,  rebuked  transgressors, 
and  usually  directed  the  public  religious  exercises  of  his  quar- 
ter on  the  Sabbath.  The  persons  who,  in  1742,  sent  up  the 
first  formal  petition  to  the  Secession  Church  for  preaching, 
seem  to  have  been  organized  into  a  society,  and  were  in  gootl 
working  condition.  In  other  words,  they  seem  to  have  had 
an  enero-etic  leader,  in  whom  all  had  confidence.  This  is  the 
more  probable,  since  they,  in  their  petition,  declare  their  readi- 
ness to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  mission. 

Previous  to  the  appointment  of  Messrs.  Gellatly  and  Arnot 
as  missionaries  to  America,  the  Secession  Church  had  made 
several  unsuccessful  efforts  to  meet  the  urgent  demands  made 
upon  it  by  the  societies  in  the  new  world. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod,  in  August,  1751, 
the  Secession  Presbj'tery  of  Ireland  was  directed  to  ordain  Mr. 
James  Hume,  with  a  view  to  his  being  sent  to  America  as  a 
missionary.  At  the  same  time,  the  Presbytery  of  Perth  and 
Dunfermline  Wcis  instructed  to  license  Mr.  John  Jamieson,  that 
he  might  be  ready,  at  the  next  meeting  of  Synod,  to  be  sent 
to  the  same  field,  if  the  way  should  then  be  open.  Mr.  Hume,, 
who  was  obstinately  opposed  to  undertaking  the  work  assigned 
hjL|n  b}^  the  Synod,  was  dealt  with  in  a  very  positive  manner. 
Some  time  after  his  appointment  as  missionary  to  America,  he 
received  a  call  from  the  congregation  of  Moyrah  and  Lisburn, 
Ireland  ;  but  the  Synod  refused  to  sustain  the  call,  and  ordered 
him  to  proceed  to  fulfill  his  appointment  in  America.  ISTot- 
withstanding  this,  he  still  persisted,  and  the  Synod  finally  con- 
cluded to  grant  his  presbytery  permission  to  settle  him.  This 
was  done,  but  not  until  he  had  made  satisfactory  acknowledg- 
ment for  his  previous  obstinacy.  Mr.  Jamieson  received  a  call 
from  Duke  Street  congregation,  in  the  city  of  Glasgow,  and 


148  HISTORY    OF    THE 

was,  by  the  permission  of  Synod,  settled  over  them  as  their 
pastor.  Mr.  Jamieson,  also,  was  unwilling  to  undertake  the 
American  mission ;  but  his  unwillingness  did  not,  as  in  the 
case  of  Mr,  Hume,  amount  to  obstinacy.  Hence,  he  seems  to 
have  been  dealt  with  more  leniently. 

The  conduct  of  Messrs.  Hume  and  Jamieson  caused  a  feeling 
of  intense  disappointment  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the 
Anti-Burgher  Synod,  and  as  they  were  men  who  could  not  bear 
to  be  trifled  with,  they,  at  their  meeting  in  August,  1752,  in- 
structed the  presbyteries  not  to  license  any  one  to  preach,  until 
he  had  expressed  his  willingness  to  accept  any  missionary  ap- 
pointment that  the  Synod  might  assio-n  him,  and  that  all  theo- 
logical students  who  would  not  give  an  expression  of  their  will- 
ingness to  submit  to  the  Synod  in  its  missionary  appointments, 
were  to  be  no  longer  regarded  as  theological  students.  Almost 
immediatelj'  after  the  .passage  of  this  act,  the  application  for 
ministerial  aid  was  renewed  by  the  friends  of  the  Secession  in 
Pennsylvania.  The  Synod  ordered  Messrs.  Alexander  Gellatly 
and  Andrew  Bunyan  to  be  "  licensed  without  delay,"  that  they 
might  be  sent  to  minister  to  these  people. 

The  order  was  obeyed  ;  but.  after  having  been  licensedj  Mr. 
Bunj'an  began  to  hesitate  in  his  mind,  and  caused  another  de- 
lay. He  stated  to  the  Presbytery  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
his  undertaking  the  mission,  and  the  presbytery  referred  them 
to  the  Synod.  After  having  heard  and  considered  the  difficul- 
ties of  Mr.  Bunyan,  the  Synod  declared  that  they  were  not 
pertinent,  and  ordered  him  to  proceed  with  his  trials  for  ordi- 
nation. Still,  Mr.  Bunyan  declared  that  his  "  want  of  clear- 
ness "  continued.  The  Synod  determined  not  to  swerve  from 
its  previous  decision,  and  after  several  ineffectual  efforts  on  the 
part  of  the  Synod  to  remove  the  difficulties  of  Mr.  Bunyan,  his 
license  was  declared  null  and  void. 

iSTo  doubt  there  are  some  who  will  be  ready  to  regard  this  as 
a  hio-h-handed  act  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny.  AH  the  facts  in 
the  case  are  not  known,  and  the  circumstances  attending  it  are 
not,  and  cannot  now,  be  well  understood ;  but  from  anything 
that  appears  to  the  contrary,  this  act  of  the  Anti-Burgher 
Synod  is  defensible.  The  preacher  of  the  gospel  is  the  prop- 
erty of  the  church.  The  King  and  Head  of  the  church  com- 
mands him  to  go  wherever  the  indications  of  Providence  and 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  149 

the  voice  of  the  church  (the  people  of  God  in  tliis  case),  call 
him.  His  work  is  to  preach  the  gospel.  His  individual  pref- 
erences are  ever  to  be  regarded  as  matters  of  secondary  consid- 
eration when  compared  with  the  voice  of  the  church.  It  is 
not  claimed  that  church  courts  are  infallible.  They  often  make 
mistakes  ;  but  in  the  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government 
provision  is  made  for  correcting  these  mistakes.  In  the  case 
of  Mr.  Bun3'an,  it  is,  however,  not  claimed  that  the  Anti- 
Burgher  Synod  did  wrong  in  appointing  him  to  go  to  Penn- 
sylvania. No  doubt,  as  wise  and  prudent  men,  the}^  regarded 
him  and  Mr.  Gellatly  as  the  most  tit  persons  who  were  at  that 
time  available  for  the  transatlantic  mission.  The  subsequent 
labors  of  Mr.  Gellatly  show  that  at  least  in  his  case,  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Synod  was  correct. 

At  the  time  that  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  ordered  Messrs. 
Gellatly  and  Bunyan  to  Pennsylvania  to  preach  the  gospel, 
America  was  a  wild  waste,  full  of  wild  beasts  and  venomous 
serpents,  and  destitute  of  nearly  all  the  comforts  of  civiliza- 
tion. To  a  mind  anxious  to  secure  a  position  of  luxurj'  and 
ease,  there  was  nothing  fascinating  in  the  forests  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. On  the  contrary,  there  was,  in  the  very  name  America 
everything  to  make  such  a  mind  shudder  and  shrink  back 
from  a  voyage  thither.  Safely,  it  may  be  said,  that  tlie  first 
ministers  who  came  from  Europe  to  preach  tlie  gospel  to  the 
inhabitants  of  America,  were  richlj^  endowed  with  a  mission- 
ary spirit,  and  the  ecclesiastical  courts  by  which  the  first  mis- 
sionaries were  sent  across  the  Atlantic,  were  richly  endowed 
with  a  spirit  of  heavenly  wisdom,  the  precious  fruits  of  which 
th&nAmerican  people  are  to-day  enjoying.  In  depriving  Mr. 
Bmlj'an  of  his  license  to  preach  because  he  refused  to  obey  a 
lawful  command,  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  acted  on  the  safe 
principle  that  law,  to  be  respected,  must  be  faithfully  executed. 
The  punishment  was  a  wholesome  warning  to  others,  and  it  was 
profitable  to  Mr.  Bunyan  himself.  Having  had  time  for  sober 
reflection,  he  presented  himself  before  the  Sj'nod  and  confessed 
that  he  had  given  just  ground  of  offense,  and  declared  his  will- 
ingness to  go  as  a  missionary  either  to  Pennsylvania,  or  to  an}^ 
other  field  to  which  the  Synod  might  see  fit  to  send  him.  This 
being  satisfactory  to  the  Synod,  his  license  was  restored  ;  but 
he  was  not  again  appointed  to  preach  the  gospel  in  America. 


150  HISTORY    OP    THE 

It  would  seem  that  in  sendino;  tbeir  iirst  missionaries  to 
Pennsylvania,  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  was  governed  by  the 
example  of  our  Lord.  He  sent  out  his  discij^les  "  by  two  and 
two,"  and  in  conformity  to  his  example  did  the  Sj^nod  send 
Alexander  Gellatly  and  Andrew  Arnot  to  Pennsylvania.  Mr. 
Bunyan  had  occasioned  a  delay  of  nearl}'  a  year.  Xo  objection 
being  made  by  Mr.  Gellatly,  he  was,  as  soon  as  convenient, 
licensed  and  ordained  by  his  presbytery,  with  a  view  to  enter- 
ing upon  the  work  to  which  he  had  Ijeeii  appointed  b}'  tlie 
Synod. 

Mr.  Arnot,  the  pastor  of  the  congregation  of  Midholm,  in 
the  south  of  Scotland,  volunteered  to  accompau}-  Mr.  Gellatl}- 
to  l*cnnsylvania  and  remain  for  two  j-ears,  provided  the  Synod 
w^ould  make  provision  for  his  congregation  during  his  absence. 
The  conditions  upon  which  ]Mr.  Arnot  accompanied  Mv.  trel- 
latly  seems  to  have  been  that  he  would  remain  two  years  in 
Pennsylvania,  in  the  event  no  other  missionary  could  be  se- 
cured previous  to  that  time  ;  and  if  he  should  see  fit  to  remain 
in  Pennsylvania,  the  Synod  would  give  their  assent.  Mr. 
Arnot  was  every  way  acceptable  to  the  Sjmod,  and  their  con- 
sent was  cordially  given  to  the  conditions  upon  whicli  he  pro- 
posed to  undertake  the  mission  to  thp  Xew  World. 

Very  soon  after  the  arrival  of  Messrs,  Gellatly  and  Arnot 
the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  subordinate  to  the  Synod  of  ISTew 
York  and  Pennsylvania,  moved  by  a  spirit  which  savors  but 
little  of  the  gospel  of  peace  and  love,  ]iublished  a  "  AVarning 
against  the  Seceders."  In  this  "Warning,"  Messrs.  Gellatly 
and*  Arnot  were  stigmatized  as  '•  schismatics  and  errorists." 
That  they  might  show  their  spleen  und  give  vent  to  their 
hatred  for  the  doctrines  and  religious  practices  of  the  Seceders, 
they  republished,  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  a  book  Avhich  had,  about 
1749,  been  publislied  by  the  Pev.  Samuel  Delap,  in  Ireland.  It 
is  clear  that  Mr.  Delap,  who  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  leaders 
of  the  orthodox  party  in  the  Synod  of  Ulster,  had  very  indis- 
tinct notions  of  the  tenets  held  by  the  Seceders.  It  is  hard 
even  to  conjecture  what  led  him  to  waste  his  time  and  display 
his  learning  and  ability  in  writing  the  book.  It  is  notorious 
that  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle,  previous  to  publishing  the 
"Warning"  and  republishing  the  book,  or  rather  pamphlet  of 
the  Rev.  Samuel  Delap,  invited  Messrs.  Gellatly  and  Arnot  to 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  151 

unite  ^vith  them.  This  they  could  not,  or  at  least  did  not  do. 
The  points  on  Avhich  thej  differed  were  "  the  nature  of  faith 
and  extent  of  the  gospel  offer."  These,  together  with  a  differ- 
ence respecting  Covenanting,  were  the  main  grounds  upon 
\vhich  the  separation  was  continued.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  one  of  the  controversies  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  was 
about  the  offer  of  the  gospel.  There  was  a  party  in  the  Estab- 
lished Church  of  Scotland  who  held  to  what  may,  with  pro- 
priety, be  called  a  limited  or  restricted  offer  of  the  gospel.  In 
other  words,  this  party  held  to  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atone- 
ment, and  restricted  the  offer  of  the  gospel  to  those  for  whom 
an  atonement  had  been  made.  The  doctrine  of  the  Secession 
Church  on  this  point,  in  the  language  of  Halph  Erskine,  is 
that  the  "  offer  of  the  gospel  is  universal  to  all  that  hear  it." 
ABother  doctrinal  difference  between  the  Seceders  and  a  strong 
and  dominant  party  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  sinner  should  prepare  himself  to  come  to  Jesus  before 
he  actually  comes.  The  Seceders  held  that  the  sinner  was  un- 
able to  make  any  preparation,  and  none  was  required.  The 
party  to  whom  reference  is  made,  pronounced  the  following 
H-leliverance  of  the  Auchterarder  Presbytery  as  unsound:  "  It 
is  not  sound  and  orthodox  to  teach  that  we  must  forsake  sin  in 
order  to  our  coming  to  Christ,  and  instating  us  in  covenant 
with  God." 

It  is  not  certainly  known  whether  or  not  any  of  the  early 
members  of  the  New  Castle  Presbyter}^  held  the  same  notions 
on  these  points  as  those  held  by  a  party  in  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land ;  but  it  is  probable  they  did,  since  it  is  known  that  the 
contemplated  union  was  frustrated  because  they  differed  or 
could  not  agree  on  these  points,  and  it  is  a  fact  beyond  all  con- 
troversy that  no  change  ever  took  place  in  the  Secession  Church 
on  these  points. 

It  is  but  just  and  proper  to  remark  that  between  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  Scotland  and  Ireland  and 
the  members  of  the  Secession  Church,  both  Burghers  and  Anti- 
Burgliers  and  Covenanters — there  were  cherished  feelings  far 
from  Christian.  Those  belonging  to  the  different  denomina- 
tions, who  came  to  America,  brought  with  them  the  same  hos- 
tile feelings  which  raged  in  their  bosoms  on  the  other  side  of 
•the  Atlantic.     The  simple,  unvarnished  truth  is,  the  Secession 


152  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Church  was  hated  and  despised  by  Presbyterians,  both  in  Eu- 
rope and  America,  and  the  members  of  the  Secession  Church 
looked  with  a  painful,  and,  perhaps,  sinful  degree  of  suspicion 
upon  all  other  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

It  will  be  admitted  by  every  unprejudiced  mind  that  these 
suspicions  were  not  altogether  without  a  foundation.  One  of 
the  tendencies  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  both  in  Ireland  and 
Scotland,  is  to  embrace,  in  some  of  its  forms,  Arianism.  The 
tendency  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  when  first  established  in 
America,  was  to  deo-enerate  into  Congregationalism,  and  jSTew 
England  Congregationalism  has  developed  itself  into  Arianism 
of  all  grades  and  shades. 

To  the  "Warning"  issued  by  the  Xew  Castle  Presbytery 
Messrs.  Gellatly  and  Arnot  replied  in  a  pamphlet  of  240  pages. 
In  1758,  an  answer  to  the  work  of  ]Messrs.  Gellatly  and  Arnot 
was  published  by  Messrs.  S.Einly  and  R.  Smith.  Mr.  Gellatly 
again  replied,  in  a  work  of  more  than  200  pages. 

oSTo  one  will  contend  that  these  controversies  were  attended 
wnth  no  injury  to  the  cause  of  religion.  Controversial  writers 
wax  warm  and  say  many  things  that  they  themselves  do  not 
approve  of  when  time  cools  the  fever  of  dispute.  Such  was 
the  case  in  the  keen  controversy  which  was  carried  on  between 
Messrs.  Finly  and  P.  Smith,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  Messrs.  Gellatly  and  Arnot,  on  the  part  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania. 

That  controversy,  however,  did  good  as  well  as  evil.  In  it- 
self it  was  only  evil ;  but  God,  who  overrules  all  things,  made 
it  redound  to  his  own  glory.  It  gave  the  members  of  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  a  fair  opportunity  to  publish  and  advocate 
the  doctrines  and  practices  of  their  standards,  and  it  served  as 
a  salutary  check  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Both  parties  were 
benefitted. 

Whatever  harm  or  injury  may  have  grown  out  of  that  bitter 
controversy  must  be,  in  all  honesty,  laid  to  the  charge  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Xew  Castle  and  individuals  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  By  them  the  proposition  for  union  was  made,  and 
when  the  union  could  not  be  eti:ected,  the}^  issued  the  "Warn- 
ing" in  which  Gellatly  and  Arnot  were  published  to  the  world 
as  "disturbers  of  the  peace,  bigots  and  fanatics." 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  15S 

This  controversy  lasted  for  about  six  years,  but  it  did  not 
turn  away  Mr.  Gellatly  from  his  work  as  au  humble  minister 
of  the  gospel. 

In  JSTovember,  1753,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsyl- 
vania  was  organized,  and  during  the  first  part  of  the  next  year 
Mr.  Gellatly  settled  as  pastor  of  Octoraro  and  Oxford  congre- 
gations ;  the  former  in  Lancaster,  and  the  latter  in  Chester 
county,  Pa.  Here  he  continued  to  labor  until  the  12th  of 
March,  1761,  when  he  died,  in  the  forty-second  year  of  his  age, 
and  the  eighth  year  after  his  arrival  in  America. 

In  the  summer  of  1754,  Mr.  Arnot  returned  to  Scotland. 
Previous  to  his  return,  however,  the  Rev.  James  Proudfoot,  a 
licentiate  under  the  care  of  the  Presbytery  of  Perth  and  Dun- 
fermline, was,  by  order  of  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod,  ordained, 
and  directed  to  proceed  to  the  transatlantic  mission.  Mr. 
Proudfoot  set  sail  from  Greenock  for  Pennsylvania  in  the  early 
part  of  August,  1754,  about  one  month  after  his  ordination. 
He  reached  Boston  in  the  month  of  September,  and  as  soon  as 
was  possible,  set  out  for  Pennsylvania.  In  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia he  met  the  Rev.  Andrew  Arnot,  then  returning  to 
Scotland. 

After  an  itinerancy  of  four  years,  Mr.  Proudfoot  received  a 
call  from  the  Associate  congregation  in  Pequa,  Pa.  Here  he 
remained  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  duties  for  a  quarter 
of  a  century.  After  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  was  con- 
stituted, Mr.  Proudfoot  having  received  and  accepted  a  call 
from  Salem,  in  the  State  of  Xew  York,  moved  there,  with  his 
family  in  the  autumn  of  1783,  His  earthly  labors  were  brought 
to  a  close  on  the  22d  of  October,  1802,  in  the  seventieth  year 
of  his  age. 

Xotwithstanding  the  heavy  demands  made  upon  both 
branches  of  the  Secession  Church,  at  home,  they  never  lost 
sight  of  the  Foreign  field.  In  less  than  thirty  years  after 
the  constitution  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  two  Presbyteries 
had  been  organized  in  Ireland,  a  number  of  missionaries  sent 
to  the  Highlands  of  Scotland,  and  a  mission  station  established 
in  iS'ova  Scotia.  However  interesting  and  edifying  it  might 
be  to  trace  all  the  missionary  labors  and  all  the  missionary  suc- 
cesses of  the  Secession  Church,  it  would  not  comport  with  our 
desio-n. 


154  HISTORY    OF    THE 

At  a  very  early  period,  America  was  regarded  b}'  the  Seces- 
sion Church  as  a  most  important  missionary  field.  In  1758 
Messrs  Gellatl_y  and  Proudfoot  were  joined  b}'  ]\Ir.  ^Matthew 
Henderson.  Very  soon  after  his  arrival  in  America,  Mr.  Hen- 
derson became  the  pastor  of  Oxford,  Lancaster  county,  Pa. 
Here  he  labored  for  a  period  of  about  twenty  years,  or  to  the 
3^ear  1781.  About  two  years  after  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Hender- 
son, the  hands  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania 
were  strengthened  by  the  Rev.  John  ^Mason  and  two  proba- 
tioners, Robert  Annan  and  John  Smart.  They  landed  in  ISTew 
York  in  June,  1761,  and  as  Mr.  Mason  had  been  invited  to 
come  to  America  by  a  congregation  in  the  city  of  Xew  York, 
he  was,  in  a  short  time,  installed  over  this  people,  and  remained 
their  pastor  until  the  time  of  his  death,  which  occurred  April 
19,  1792.  The  church  of  which  Mr.  ]\lason  was  pastor  was 
long  known  as  "  the  Cedar  Street  Chui'ch.'' 

After  itinerating  for  a  period  of  near  two  years,  Mr.  Annan 
•was,  on  the  8th  of  June,  1763,  ordained  and  installed  at  Marsh 
Creek,  Adams  county,  Pa.,  pastor  of  Marsh  Creek  and  Little 
ConewatTO  congregations.  ^Mr.  Smart,  after  remaining  for  a 
short  time,  returned  to  Scotland. 

In  August,  1763,  Mr.  William  Marshall,  a  probationer  in 
connection  with  the  Associate  (Anti-Burgher)  Presbytery  of 
Perth,  landed  in  Philadelphia.  At  the  meeting  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  at  Octoraro,  on  the  1st  of 
November,  1764,  three  calls — one  from  the  congregation  of 
Deep  Run,  one  from  Octoraro,  and  one  from  Muddy  Creek — 
were  presented  for  the  ministerial  services  and  pastoral  labors 
of  Mr.  Marshall.  Mr.  Matthew  Henderson  claimed  that  it  wa| 
the  duty  of  the  presbytery,  in  a  judicial  capacity,  to  say  posi- 
tively which  one  of  the  three  calls  Mr.  Marshall  should  accept. 
The  other  members  of  the  presbytery,  taking  a  ditierent  view 
of  the  matter,  decided  that  Mr.  Marshall  be  allowed  the  privi- 
lege of  accepting  any  one  of  the  three  calls.  In  genuine  Sece- 
der  style,  Mr.  Henderson  had  his  dissent  recorded  in  the  min- 
utes of  the  presbyter^' . 

It  is  perhaps  impossible,  at  this  late  date,  when  nearly  all 
the  circumstances  connected  with  the  case  are  forgotten,  to 
decide  which  acted  more  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of 
strict  Presbyterianism,  the  presbytery  or  ]Mr.  Henderson.     Mr. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  155 

Marshall  certainly  had  the  right  to  decline  accepting  all  of  the 
calls.  This  he  could  not,  however,  have  done  without  first 
having  given  the  presbj'tery  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  his 
declinature.  Had  Mr.  Marshall  been  in  doubt  as  to  which  one 
of  the  calls  he  should  accept,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  presbyter3' 
to  make  the  decision.  The  presbytery  surely  had  the  right  to 
direct  Mr.  Marshall. 

The  dissent  of  Mr.  Henderson  having  amounted  to  little, 
Mr.  Marshall  accepted  the  call  from  Deep  Eun,  Bucks  county, 
Pa.,  and  on  the  30th  of  August,  1765,  was  ordained  and  in- 
stalled their  pastor. 


156  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  IX. 

PASTORAL  CHARGES  IN  176o— All  Anti-Burghers— Thomas  Clark  First 
Burgher  Minister  who  Came  to  America— Birth  and  Education  of  Mr.  Clark 
'  —Licensed  and  Sent  to  Ireland— Settles  at  Ballybay — Main.  Black  and  Clark 
Constitute  Associate  Presbyter}-  of  Down — Presbytery  of  Moyrah  and  Lis- 
burn— History  of  Thomas  Clark— Fought  against  the  Pretender— Difficul- 
ties in  Ireland — Thrust  into  Prison — Forced  to  Leave  the  Country — In  Com- 
pany with  Three  -Hundred  Members  of  his  Congregation  Comes  to  Amer- 
ica— Reasons  for  Leaving  Ireland — Solicited  by  Friends  to  Come  to  America 
— Opened  a  Correspondence  with  the  Hon.  Robert  Harper — Obtains  a  Grant 
of  Land — Part  of  his  Congregation  Settle  in  South  Carolina;  the  other  Part 
in  New  York — The  Turner  Grant — Erected  a  Church  in  1766-67 — Secession 
of  the  Church — Dr.  Clark  Visited  South  Carolina  in  1769— Resigns  the  Pas- 
torate of  Salem.  1782.  and  Settles  at  Cedar  Spring  in  1786 — Dr.  Clark  and  the 
Anti-Burghers  Coalesce,  in  176.5 — The  Coalescence  Disapi^roved  by  the  Anti- 
Burgher  Synod — Kinlo(5k  and  Telfair  Sent  to  America — Join  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania — John  Smith  and  John  Rodgers  Sent  by  the 
Anti-Burgher  Synod  to  Dissolve  the  Union  of  the  Burghers  and  Anti-Burgh- 
ers in  America — Take  their  Seats  as  Presbyters — Burgher  Congregations  in 
America. 

The  pastoral  charges  now  (1765),  in  connection  with  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  were  live.  All  the  Seces- 
sion ministers  who,  up  to  1764,  had  come  to  America,  were  in 
connection  with  the  General  Associate,  or,  as  it  was  usually 
called,  Anti- Burgher  Synod.  The  first  minister  in  connection 
with  the  Associate  or  Burgher  Synod,  who  came  to  the  new 
world,  was  the  celebrated  Thomas  Clark,  or  Clarke^  according 
to  his  own  orthograph}-. 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Clark  was,  by  birth  and  education,  a 
Scotchman.  He  was  born  on  the  5th  of  ISTovember,  1720,  and 
graduated  sometime  previous  to  1745,  at  the  University  of 
Glasgow.  During  the  years  1745-46,  he  served  his  country 
faithfully  in  the  army  which  fought  against  the  Pretender. 
The  first  ecclesiastical  mention  that  is  made  of  his  name,  so  far 
as  has  been  discovered,  is  by  the  Burgher  Synod,  at  its  meeting 
at  Stirling  on  the  16th  of  June,  1747.  Application  was  made 
to  that  body,  at  that  time,  by  several  societies  for  a  "  supply 
of  sermon."     The  field  was  too  sreat  for  the  number  of  labor- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  157 

ers.  The  harvest  was  truly  great;  but  the  laborers  were  few. 
All  that  the  Synod  could  do  was  to  order  that  James  Wright, 
Thomas  Main  and  Thomas  Clark  be  entered  on  trials  for  license 
by  the  Presbytery  of  Glasgow.  This  was  done,  and  in  April  of 
the  following  year,  Thomas  Clark  was  licensed  to  preach  the 
gospel.  After  preaching  for  about  one  year  in  Scotland,  and 
two  years  in  Ireland,  he  was,  on  the  23d  of  Jul}^,  1751,  or- 
dained and  installed  pastor  of  the  congregation  of  I3allibay, 
Ireland.  On  the  next  day,  he,  in  connection  with  the  Revs. 
Thomas  Main  and  Andrew  Black,  were  constituted  into  a 
Presbytery  which  they  designated  the  "  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Down."  This  Associate  Presbj^ter}'  of  Down  must  not  be 
confounded  with  the  Presbytery  of  Moyrah  and  Lisburn  in 
-connection  with  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod.  This  latter  was 
formed  on  the  13th  of  April,  1750.  The  ministers  in  connec- 
tion with  it,  at  the  time  of  the  organization,  were  Isaac  Patton, 
David  Arrott  and  Alexander  Stewart. 

The  history  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Clark  is  full  of  thrilling  in- 
terest. It  is  little  that  is  known  of  liini ;  but  that  little  is  so 
wonderful  that  it  produces  an  insatiable  craving  to  know  more. 
Having  completed  his  literary  course  in  the  University  of  Glas- 
gow, he  then  graduated  in  medicine.  Hence,  he  was  at  that 
time,  and  is  yet  spoken  of  as  Dr.  Clark.  At  some  time  previ- 
ous to  1745,  he  was  "  chaplain  in  the  family  of  a  gentleman 
resident  in  Galloway,  and  signalized  his  loyalty  by  taking  up 
arms  against  the  Pretender."  It  is  hard  to  tell  what  significa- 
tion is  to  be  attached  to  the  word  "  chaplain  "  in  the  preced- 
ing quotation.  Certain  it  is,  according  to  the  records  of  the 
Burgher  Synod,  that  Mr.  Clark  was  not  licensed  to  preach 
until  April,  1748.  In  June,  1749,  he  was  sent  by  the  Burgher 
Presbytery  of  Glasgow  to  Ireland.  After  his  arrival  in  Ire- 
land, until  his  settlement  as  pastor  of  the  congregation  of  Bal- 
lybay,  a  period  of  two  years,  his  itinerate  labors  were  very 
extensive,  embracing  the  counties  of  Monaghan,  Tyrone,  Ar- 
magh amVDown.  Without  being  what  men  of  the  world  would 
call  great,) he  was  regarded  b}''  all  as  full  of  zeal  and  eminently 
pious,  '^e  wore  a  Highland  bonnet,  and  expressed  himself 
in  broad  Scotch,  and  there  was  nothing  either  in  his  dark 
visage,  or  in  his  tall,  gaunt  figure,  fitted  to  make  any  very 


158  '  HISTORY    OF    THE 

favorable  impression  on  a  stranger;  bnt  those  who  entered  into 
conversation  with  him  were  soon  made  sensible  that  they  were 
holding  fellowship  with  a  minister  of  Christ.'' 

In  Ireland,  Dr.  Clark  w^as  loved,  feared  and  hated.  He  was 
loved  by  all  pious  people,  feared  by  profligate  sinners,  and 
hated  by  new-light  ministers.  Bj'  this  latter  class  of  individ- 
uals he  was  fined,  imprisoned,  and  on  one  occasion  forced  to 
leave  the  country  for  a  time,  in  order  to  save  his  life.  Under 
circumstances  sufficient  to  try  the  faith  and  patience  of  any 
man.  Dr.  Clark  labored  in  Ireland  for  nearly  sixteen  j-ears. 
His  labors  were  by  no  means  confined  to  his  own  congregation, 
but  he  was,  in  journeys,  often,  constantly  on  the  lookout  for 
some  place  where  he  could  do  something  to  advance  his  Mas- 
ter's kingdom.  On  the  10th  of  May,  1764,  he,  in  company 
with  about  three  hundred  of  his  congregation  and  neighbors, 
set  sail  from  jN'ewry,  Ireland,  for  America.  They  landed  in 
safety  at  i!s"ew  York  on  the  28th  of  July.  In  the  coming  of 
Dr.  Clark  to  America,  and  the  circumstances  which  led  to  that 
event,  as  well  as  in  every  other  dispensation  of  I'rovidence  con- 
cerning him,  may  be  traced  in  legible  characters  the  purpose 
of  God  to  overrule  all  things  for  his  own  glory  and  the  good 
of  his  people.  It  is  the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  light  out 
of  darkness,  order  out  of  confusion,  and  good  out  of  evil.  This 
was  demonstrated  in  the  events  resulting  from  the  coming  of 
Dr.  Clark  to  America. 

It  is  said  that  the  old  eagle,  when  she  would  have  her  young 
ones  quit  the  nest,  tears  it  to  pieces,  thus  forcing  them  to  leave 
it.  So  God,  when  he  would  have  his  servants  leave  one  field 
of  labor  and  enter  on  another,  he  tears  up  the  old  nest — breeds 
confusion  in  the  camp. 

Dr.  Clark  either  had,  or  thought  he  had,. ceased  to  be  usefal 
in  the  congregation  of  Ballybay.  The  youth  of  the  congrega- 
tion had  grown  indift'erent,  he  says,  with  regard  to  religious 
instruction  on  the  Sabbath,  and  the  old  spent  the  interval  be- 
tween sermons  on  the  Sabbath  in  foolish  and  secular  conver- 
sation. The  membership  of  the  congregation  was  growing 
neither  in  numbers  nor  piety  ;  and  in  addition,  they  were  with- 
holding from  their  pastor  a  comfortable  support.  Prompted 
b}^  the  indications  of  Providence,  and  guided,  as  we  may  safely 
conclude,  by  God's  Holy  Spirit,  he  bid  adieu  to  the  friends  of 


AS^SOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  iO',» 

his  youth  and  the  scenes  of  his  early  labors,  and  turned  his 
anxious  eyes  toward  the  home,  of  the  oppressed  of  every  clime. 

In  addition  to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Clark's  usefulness  in  Ireland 
was  apparentl}'  growing  less  and  less  each  year,  his  personal 
friends,  who  had  previously  emigrated  to  America,  were  anx- 
ious that  he  would  join  them  in  their  new  home  west  of  the 
Atlantic.  As  early  as  1755,  and  perhaps  at  a  date  anterior  to 
this,  several  families,  members  of  the  congregation  at  Bally- 
bay,  came  to  America.  Some  of  these  families  settled  in  Xew 
York ;  one  at  least — the  Harris  family — in  Mecklenburg 
county,  ZST.  C. ;  and  two — Kilpatrick  and  Hamilton — in  Chester 
county,  and  one,  by  the  name  of  Young,  in  York  county,  S.  C. 
By  these  personal  friends  of  Dr.  Clark  and  other  individuals 
in  America,  who  at  one  time  had  been  connected  with  the 
congregations  under  the  supervision  of  the  Associate  Presb}'- 
tery  of  Down,  he  was  earnestly  solicited  to  come  to  America. 
Under  existing  circumstances,  he  concluded  that  it  was  his 
duty  to  yield  to  these  solicitations. 

Before  leaving  Ireland,  however,  he  made  provision  for  the 
temporal  comfort  of  those  who  might  accompany  him.  Ho 
opened  a  correspondence  with  the  Hon.  Robert  Harper,  of 
King's  College,  in  the  city  of  Xew  York.  The  names  of  one 
hundred  families,  which  designed  emigrating  from  the  north 
of  Ireland  to  America,  were  furnished  Mr.  Harper  by  Dr.  Clark. 
That  these  families  might  be  provided  a  home  in  the  Xew 
AVorld,  Mr.  Harper  obtained  from  the  government,  on  the  23d 
of  Xovember,  1763,  forty  thousand  acres  of  land,  in  what  is  at 
present  AVarren  county,  Kew  York.  After  landing  at  Xew 
York  city,  the  congregation  (such  it  actuallj'  was,)  of  Dr.  Clark 
divided.  Part  set  out  by  land  for  Long  Cane  and  Cedar  Spring,. 
in  Abbeville  county,  S.  C. ;  and  the  other,  and'greater  part  passed 
up  the  Hudson  as  far  as  Stillwater.  There  the  larger  part  halted, 
while  a  few  families  proceeded  to  the  tract  of  land  secured  by 
Mr.  Harper  for  their  settlement. 

Here  they  spent  the  winter  ;  but  becoming  discouraged  on 
account  of  the  dreary  aspect  of  the  country,  they  returned,  in 
the  earl^^  spring,  to  their  friends  at  Stillwater;  and  although,, 
on  the  15th  of  May,  1765,  Mr.  Harper  obtained  for  each  family 
a  grant  of  four  hundred  acres  of  land,  they  preferred  not  to  . 
accept  this  generous  ofler. 


1()0  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Dr.  Clark  now  set  about  to  find  for  his  friends  and  congre- 
gation anotlier  home.  An  extensive  exploration,  when  the 
facilities  for  such  a  work  ai'e  considered,  was  made.  The 
region  of  country  embraced  in  "Washington  county  received 
his  chief  attention.  During  the  spring  of  1765,  he  visited  the 
plain  on  which  the  town  of  Salem  now"  stands.  In  the  house 
■of  James  Turner,  the  only  inhabitant  of  the  plain  at  that  time, 
he  preached  to  a  few  persons  who  had  collected  from  the  few 
scattering  dwellings  in  the  surrounding  regions. 

In  the  providence  of  God,  it  was  so  ordered  that  the  time  at 
which  Dr.  Clark  visited  the  region  was  most  favorable  for  ac- 
complishing the  object  which  he  had  in  view,  and  all  the  cir- 
cumstances conspired  to  its  favorable  completion. 

On  the  7th  of  August,  1764,  the  Governor  of  the  province  of 
JSTew  York  had  conveyed  to  a  company  of  twenty-four  persons 
in  Massachusetts  25,000  acres  of  land,  in  what  is  now  "Wash- 
ington county.  Two  of  the  company  were  Alexander  Turner 
and  his  son  James.  From  the  former,  since  he  was,  perhai:)S, 
the  most  efficient  member  of  the  compan^'^,  the  grant  was 
designated  as  "Turner's  Grant,"  and  by  this  appellation  it  was 
long  known.  One  half,  or  12,000  acres  of  this  grant  was,  by 
the  original  company,  conveyed  to  Oliver  De  Lancey  and  Peter 
Dubois,  of  the  city  of  Kew  York.  During  the  same  year,  1764, 
the  whole  tract  was  surveyed  and  divided  into  lots  of  less  than 
ninety  acres  each.  The  lots  were  then  distributed  by  ballot, 
between  the  original  company  and  De  Lancey  and  Dubois. 
Previous  to  the  drawing,  however,  it  was  mutually  agreed  and 
legally  arranged  that  six  lots,  each  containing  eighty-eight 
acres,  should  be  reserved  and  devoted  exclusively  to  the  sup- 
port of  a  minister  and  school-master.  Having  been  apprised 
of  these  facts,  and  being  favorably  impressed  with  this  region, 
Dr.  Clark  immediately  set  about  to  procure  the  De  Lancey  and 
Dubois  part  of  the  Turner  grant,  on  which  to  settle  his  con- 
gregation. Without  delay,  he  set  out  in  person  for  New  York, 
for  the  purpose  of  completing  the  arrangement  with  the  pro- 
prietors. His  eiibrts  were  crowned  with  success.  De  Lancey 
and  Dubois  conveyed  to  him  the  whole  of  the  12,000  acres  of 
land  free  of  all  charge  for  five  years,  after  which  the  settlers 
were  to  pay  an  annual  rent  of  one  shilling  per  acre.  Part  of 
the  congregation  removed  from  Stillwater,  in  September,  1765, 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  IGl 

and  in  the  spring  of  the  following  year  they  were  joined  by 
the  remainder.  Families  came  from  Scotland  and  Ireland,  and 
the  country  was  rapidh'  settled  by  an  energetic,  thrifty  and 
pious  people.  The  town  was  called  Salem,  which  name  it  still 
bears. 

During  the  winter  of  1766-67,  a  log  church  was  erected — the 
first  in  Washington  county,  ISTew  York,  and  at  that  time  the 
only  church  in  the  State  of  Xew  York  north  of  Albany.  In 
this  rude  structure  the  congregation  assembled  on  the  last  Sat- 
urday in  May,  1767,  and  worshipped  the  God  of  their  fathers. 
Xo  organization  took  place.  A  congregation  of  two  hundred 
communicants,  with  its  pastor,  the  Eev.  Thomas  Clark,  M.  D., 
and  its  elders,  George  Oswald,  David  Tomb,  "William  Thomp- 
son, William  Moncrietf,  William  Wilson,  Richard  Hoy,  John 
Foster  and  David  Hanna,  crossed  the  Atlantic  and  settled  in 
the  wild  woods  of  eastern  Xew  York. 

In  the  year  1769,  Dr.  Clark  visited  that  portion  of  his  con- 
gregation which  went  to  South  Carolina.  In  the  summer  of 
1782,  he  resigned  the  pastorate  of  Salem,  and  in  1786,  was  in- 
stalled pastor  of  Cedar  Spring  and  Long  Cane  congregations, 
in  Abbeville  county,  S.  C.  Here,  on  the  26tli  of  December, 
1792,  death  terminated  his  earthly  labors. 

Previous  to  the  arrival  of  Dr.  Clark,  all  the  Secession  min- 
isters who  came  to  America,  were  in  connection  with  the  Anti- 
Burgher  Sjmod.  Dr.  Clark  was,  as  we  have  elsewhere  stated, 
a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Down,  Ireland,  in  connection 
with  the  Burgher  Synod  of  Scotland.  Since  there  were  no  royal 
towns  in  the  wild  woods  of  America,  and  consequently  no 
Burgher  oaths  to  be  imposed  on  any  one.  Dr.  Clark, like  a  sensible 
man,  was  unwilling  to  keep  up  a  distinction  where  no  differ- 
ence of  opinion  existed.  Very  soon  after  his  arrival  in  Amer- 
ica, he  made  application  to  connect  with  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania.  This  application  was  made  before  his 
congregation  left  Stillwater.  The  members  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  took  the  same  view  of  the  matter 
us  that  entertained  by  Dr.  Clark,  and  on  the  2d  of  September, 
1765,  the  union  was  consummated  on  a  basis  entirely  satisfac- 
tory to  the  individuals  immediately  concerned. 

12 


162  HISTORY    OF    THE 

As  it  can  be  of  but  little  interest  to  an}'  one  at  the  present 
day  to  know  the  conditions  upon  which  Dr.  Clark,  a  Burgher,, 
was  received  as  a  member  of  the  Anti-Burgher  Presb3'tery  of 
Pennsylvania,  it  is  not  necessary  that  Ave  transcribe  the  articles 
of  agreement.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  both  parties  signilied  their 
approbation  of  the  "Act,  Declaration  and  Testimony"  of  the 
Secession  Church  previous  to  the  rupture  caused  by  the  differ- 
ence of  opinion  concerning  the  Burgher  oath.  Both  parties 
were  prohibited  from  either  censuring  or  approving  what  had 
been  done  or  said  in  favor  of  or  against  taking  the  Burgher- 
oath.  Tins  was  wise,  and  if  we  consider  the  violent  contro- 
versies which  had  been  waged  between  Burghers  and  Anti- 
Burghers,  it  was  eminently  creditable  to  both  the  heads  and. 
hearts  of  all  the  parties  entering  into  that  union.  The  course 
pursued  by  the  Presbj'tery  of  Pennsylvania  was  disapproved  of. 
by  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  of  Scotland  ;  but  the  Burgher 
Synod  favored  the  action  of  Dr.  Clark. 

The  next  Secession  ministers  sent  to  America  were  David 
Telfair  and  Samuel  Kinlock.  Both  were  in  connection  with 
the  Burgher  branch  of  the  Secession.  They  sailed  for  Amer- 
ica in  the  early  part  of  the  spring  of  1766.  David  Telfair  was 
an  ordained  minister,  and  at  the  time  of  his  appointment  to  go 
to  America  was  the  pastor  of  the  congregation  at  Bridge-of- 
Teith,  and  Samuel  Kinlock  was  a  probationer.  Almost  imme- 
diately on  the  arrival  of  these  two  Burgher  missionaries,  they 
began  to  make  arrangements  for  a  coalesence  with  the  Anti- 
Burgher  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania.  David  Telfair  wrote 
home  to  the  Burgher  Synod  that  this  union  was  consummated 
on  the  5th  of  June,  1766. 

Both  Telfiiir  and  Kinlock  returned  to  Scotland — the  latter 
in  the  spring  of  1769,  and  the  former  during  the  latter  part  of 
1767,  or  spring  of  1768. 

It  was  contemplated  by  the  Burgher  Synod  of  Scotland  that 
Telfair  and  Kinlock,  together  with  Dr.  Clark,  would  constitute 
themselv.es  into  a  presbytery  for  the  better  man.agement  of  the 
mission  entrusted  to  their  care.  Both  Telfair  and  Kinlock 
concluded,  as  Dr.  Clark  had  done  before  their  arrival,  that  the}' 
could  best  advance  the  cause  of  the  Redeemer  by  forming  a 
nnion  with  the  Anti-Burgher  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania. 
This  union  seems  to  have  been,  brought  about  by  the  earnest- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  163 

solicitation  of  the  people  in  America,  in  connection  with  the 
Burgher  hranch  of  the  Secession.  Previous  to  Dr.  Clark's 
union  with  the  Anti-Burgher  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  the 
people  of  that  State,  in  connection  with  the  Burgher  Synod  of 
Scotland,  wrote  a  beseeching  letter  to  the  Burgher  S^^nod  that 
the  controversies  about  the  Burgher  oath  would  forever  cease^ 
and  that  Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers  "micrht  be  one  again  in 
the  Lord,  both  at  home  and  abroad."  To  this  entreaty  the- 
Burgher  Synod  of  Scotland  was  ever  inclined  to  listen;  but  to. 
many  in  connection  with  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  the  subject 
of  a  union  was  highly  offensive.  It  is  proper  to  mention  in 
this  place,  that  although  a  real  union  was  formed  between  the 
Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers  in  America,  neither  party  severed 
its  connection  with  the  denomination  to  which  it  originally 
belonged.  We  scarcely  feel  able  to  judge  of  this  strange  com- 
pact. So  far  as  we  are  aware,  it  is  without  a  precedent,  and 
could  only  be  justified  on  account  of  circumstances  whicli 
rarely  have  an  existence.  There  was  but  one  presbytery,  and 
yet  part  of  the  members  of  that  presbytery  were  in  connection 
with  and  subject  to  the  higher  courts  of  one  denomination, 
and  the  other  members  to  the  higher  courts  of  a  diftcrent  de- 
nomination. 

The  union  entered  into  between  the  Burghers  and  Anti- 
Burghers  in  America  was  heartily  disapproved  of  by  the  Anti- 
Burgher  Synod,  of  Scotland.  In  1770,  John  Rodgers  and  John 
Smith  were  sent  by  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  of  Scotland  to 
America.  They  were  instructed  to  require  the  Presbytery  of 
Pennsjdvania  to  annul  the  compact  which  had  been  entered  in- 
to with  the  Burghers.  On  the  5th  of  June,  1771,  Messrs  Smith 
and  Rogers  appeared  before  the  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  at 
Pequa,  and  read  the  instructions  of  the  Synod ;  but  no  new 
presbytery  was  organized.  Neither  were  the  Burghers  ex- 
pelled ;  nor  were  the  minutes  of  the  union  expunged,  as  the 
Synod  ^kmanded,  but  Messrs.  Smith  and  Rodgers  both  took 
their  seats  as  presbyters.  This  indicates  that  Smith  and  Rod- 
gers approved  of  the  course  pursued  by  Mason  and  Annan  and 
the  other  members  of  the  Anti-Burgher  Presbytery  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 


1(54  HISTORY    OF    THE 

From  that  time  the  controversies  about  tlie  Burgher  oatli 
forever  ceased  in  America.  It  would  have  heen  well  if  the 
mother  church  in  Scotland  had  improved  tlie  lesson  taught  by 
her  children  in  the  New  World. 

The  prospects  in  America  for  the  Burgher  Synod  were  nearly, 
if  not  altogether  as  favorable  as  for  the  Anti-Burghers.  Br. 
Clark  might  have  waited  patiently  until  Telfair  and  Kinlock 
arrived,  and  then,  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  given 
them  by  the  Burgher  Synod,  they  could  have  constituted  them- 
selves into  a  presbytery  and  organized  churches.  This  was  not 
done,  and  it  was  wise  that  it  was  not.  Only  three  strictly* 
Burgher  congregations  were  ever  gathered  in  America,  and 
these  were  not  canonicalh'  organized.  They  were  Salem,  Ship- 
pen-street,  Philadelphia, and  Cambridge.  All  the  other  Seces- 
sion congregations  were  gathered  by  the  Anti-Burghers,  or  by 
the  united  body. 

After  the  coalescence  of  the  Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers, 
the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  of  Scotland  took  less  interest  than  for- 
merly in  its  trans-Atlantic  missions.  In  1773,  however,  '\VH1- 
liam  Logan  and  John  jNIurray  were  sent  to  Pennsylvania.  In 
1771  David  Telfair  returned  to  America,  but  remained  an  in- 
dependent Burgher  until  the  12th  of  August,  1780,  when  he 
united  with  the  Reformed  (Covenanter)  Presbytery;  and  with 
that  presb3'ter3^  came  into  the  union  forming  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  165 


CHAPTER  X. 

NEGOTIATIONS  looking  to  an  Union  of  the  Associates  and  Keformecl  Presby- 
terians— Division  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania — Revolu- 
tionary War — Spirit  of  Ecclesiastical  Union — Proposition  for  Union  in  1754  ; 
again  in  1769 — Negotiations  Cease — Political  Disturbances  Drew  the  Associ- 
ates and  Covenanters  Nearer  Together — Their  Differences  only  Political — 
Covenanters  Opposed  by  all  Denominations — Associates  and  Covenanters 
Warmly  Espouse  the  Cause  of  the  Colonies — Reasons  why  the  Associates  and  Co- 
venanters Should  Unite — Anti-Burghers  More  Numerous  than  the  Burghers — 
Burghers  More  Tolerant — Ministers  Educated  in  Scotland — Membership  from 
Ireland — Scotch-Irish — Two  classes  of  Scotch-Irish — Menibership  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church — Corruptions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland — 
Belfast  Society — Character  of  the  Irish  Seceders — Irish,  English  and  Scotch 
Presbyterianism — Seceders  Scotch  Presbyterians — Diiference  between  Asso- 
ciates and  Covenanters — Occupied  the  Same  Territory — Cultivate  Each  Other's 
Friendship — First  Meeting  for  Conference — Both  Cautious — Second  Meeting 
for  Conference — The  matter  brought  before  the  Associate  Presbytery — Over- 
ture by  Rev.  Murray — Associate  Presbytery  met  at  Middle  Octoraro — Spend 
Two  Days  in  Conference — Principle  Subjects  Discussed  by  the  Conference — 
Basis  of  Union — Conference  met  at  Pequa.  Pa. — Some  of  the  Associates  Op- 
posed to  the  Union  on  Any  Terms — Conference  Meets  at  Big  Spring — Basis  of 
Union  Discussed — Charges  Made — Warm  Discussion — New  Projiosition 
Drawn  Up — Basis  of  Union  Adopted  by  Presbytery  of  New  York,  1780  ;  by 
Reformed  Presbytery,  1781  ;  by  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  1782 — James 
Clarkson  and  William  Marshall  Refuse  to  go  into  the  Union — Clarkson  and 
Marshall  Continue  the  Associate  Pi-esbytery — Associate  Reformed  Synod  or- 
ganized— Names  of  those  Composing  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod — An- 
drew Patton — James  Martin — William  Martin — Object  Designed  to  be  Effected 
by  the  Union — Result  of  the  Union  the  Formation  of  Another  Denomination — 
The  Prosperity  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  Continued  to  Exist  for  Seventy-six 
Years — The  Covenanters  Send  to  Scotland  for  Ministers — Covenanters  Still 
Exist — The  Effect  of  the  Covenanters  and  Seceders  on  the  American  Govern- 
ment. 

We  have  now  reached  the  period  during  which  began  those 
ecclesiastical  negotiations  which  terminated  in  the  formation  of 
the  Associate  Eeformed  Church.  However  interesting  it  might 
be,  it  is,  at  this  late  date,  with  the  few  and  painfully  meagre 
records  which  have  been  preserved,  impossible  to  mark  with 
precision  the  exact  moment  that  those  negotiations  first  began. 
Equally  difficult  would  it  be  to  state  succinctl}'  all  the  causes 
wdiich  first  led  to  friendly  intercourse,  and  finally  to  more,  for- 
mal negotiations  between  the  parties. 


1G6  HISTORY    OF    THE 

111  1776,  the  same  year  that  the  American  Colonies  declared 
themselves  free  and  independent,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania,  which,  as  is  elsewhere  stated,  was  organized  on 
the  2d  of  November,  1753,  by  Alexander  Gellatly  and  Andrew 
Arnot,  was  divided  into  two  presbyteries.  One  retained  the 
original  name— Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania — and  the  other  was 
called  the  Presbytery  of  iSTew  York.  This  division  took  place 
on  the  20th  of  May,  near  two  months  before  the  signing  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Jjy  this  division  the  Presbytery 
of  Pennsylvania  was  made  to  consist  of  eight  ministers,  and 
that  of  ISTew  York  of  three  pastors  and  two  probationers.  The 
names  of  those  belonging  to  the  first  were  James  Proud  foot,  Mat- 
thew Henderson,  William  Marshall,  John  Rodgers,  John  Smith, 
James  Clarkson  and  John  Murray,  pastors ;  and  James  Martin 
without  a  charge.  The  members  of  the  Presbyter}'  of  Ifew 
York  Avere  John  Mason,  Robert  Annan  and  Thomas  Clark, 
pastors;  and  AVilliam  Logan,  licentiate.  These  two  Presby- 
teries were  coordinate,  but  independent,  and  sustained  no  other 
relation  to  each  other  than  that  thay  were  both  subject  to  the 
Anti-Burgher  Synod  of  Edinburgh. 

When  the  Presbytery  of  Xew  York  Avas  organized,  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  on  the  20th  of  May,  1776,  the  ties  which 
bound  the  American  colonies  to  the  mother  country  had  vir- 
tually been  severed.  The  carnage  had  actually  begun.  The 
battles  of  Lexington,  Bunker  Hill  and  Quebec  had  been  fought, 
and  the  blood  of  American  citizens  had  been  shed.  Not  only 
so,  but  the  storm  had  been  gathering  since  1755,  a  period  of 
more  than  twenty  years.  The  love  of  the  early  settlers  of 
America  for  the  mother  country  had,  in  may  instances,  been 
changed  into  hatred ;  and,  in  nearly  ever}-  case  it  had  become 
cold,  and  was  fast  verging  to  positive  indifl'erence. 

A  spirit  of  ecclesiastical  union  had,  for  a  number  of  years, 
been  at  work  among  all  the  churches  in  America  holding  the 
Presbyterian  faith.  The  first  formal  eftbrt  to  unite  the  difi:er- 
ent  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  America  was  made 
in  1754;  the  next  in  1769.  Both  these  efforts  were  unsuccess- 
ful, and  all  correspondence  l^etween  the  Associate  and  Reformed 
Presbyterian  judicatories  on  the  one  part,  and  tbe  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  on  the  othei*  part,  ceased.  Priend- 
Jy  intercourse  was  not,  however,  by  any  of  these  negotiations. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  16t 

broken  between  the  Associates  and  the  Reformed  Presbyterians, 
and  the  political  disturbances  in  which  the  countr}'  was  in- 
volved, had  a  direct  and  powerful  tendency  to  draw  these  two 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  family  more  closely  together. 
This  was  to  be  expected.  The  diflerence  which  existed  be- 
tween the  Associates — both  Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers — and 
the  Reformed  Presbyterians  or  Covenanters  was  of  a  political 
rather  than  an  ecclesiastical  character.  In  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship they  w^ere,  to  all  human  appearances,  identical.  The  Cov- 
enanters were  Presbyterians  of  the  type  which  existed  in  Scot- 
land between  the  j'cars  1638  and  1650.  The}'  regarded  the 
Government  of  Great  Britain  as  stained  with  the  blood  of  the 
Covenanted  fathers,  and  on  this  account  they  rejected  it  as  un- 
scriptural,  and  on  all  proper  occasions  boldly  testiiied  against 
it  as  a  sinful  compact  which  exposed  the  nation  to  the  judg- 
ments of  heaven.  On  account  of  their  peculiar  notions  respect- 
ing the  civil  magistracy — notions  which  were  not  well  under- 
stood, and  more  frequently  wrongly  interpreted — all  parties  in 
the  State  and  all  denominations  of  Christians  joined  hand  in 
hand  in  heaping  upon  the  Covenanters  dishonorable  epithets 
and  in  stigmatizing  them  as  the  "anti-government  party." 

Both  Associates  and  Covenanters  heartily  approved,  of  the 
course  pursued  b}'  the  American  colonies.  It  is  not  saying  too 
much  to  assert  that  the  Covenanters  had,  as  demonstrated  b}' 
this  approbation,  changed  to  some  extent  their  notions  with  re- 
spect to  the  duties  and  powers,  or  rather  the  extent  of  the  i:)Ow- 
ers,  of  the  civil  magistrate.  This  removed  the  great,  and,  in 
fact,  the  only  barrier  in  the  way  to  a  union  w' ith  the  Associates. 

There  were  several  reasons  why  a  union  w^as  formed  between 
the  Associates  and  Covenanters,  and  why  all  efforts  to  form  a 
union  with  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  were  un- 
successful. 

Of  the  two  branches  of  the  Secession  in  America,  at  the  pe- 
riod of  which  we  are  treating,  the  Anti-Burghers  were,  per- 
haps, the  more  numerous ;  but  the  Burghers  constituted  a  part 
of  nearly  all  the  congregations,  and  were  more  tolerant  in  spirit, 
and  consequently  alwa\'s  most  ready  to  heal  the  divisions  in  the 
visible  church. 


1G8  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Previous  to  the  union  which  formed  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  all  the  ministers  of  the  American  Associate  Church, 
who  liad  any  part  in  efi'ecting  the  union,  were  born  and  edu- 
cated classically,  and  all  theologically,  with,  perhaps,  a  single  ex- 
ception— that  of  David  Annan — in  Scotland.  The  membership 
however,  were  nearlj-  all  from  Ireland  ;  less,  perhaps,  than  one- 
fourth  being  from  Scotland.  They  were  wliat  is  known  in  his- 
tory as  Scotch-Irish,  Their  ancestors  had  emigrated  from  Scot- 
land to  Ireland  during  the  cruel  persecutions  which  began 
shortly  after  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.  They  belonged  to 
the  stricter  or  more  rigid  class  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  The 
peculiar  doctrines  and  practices  which  gave  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land its  distinctive  and  distinguishing  features  were  instilled  by 
these  exiles  into  the  minds  of  their  children.  These  children,  as 
a  necessary  consequence,  affiliated  with  the  Secession  Church, 
rather  than  with  the  Presbyterianism  which  prevailed  at  that 
time  in  Ireland,  and  as  a  natural  consequehce  introduced  the 
Associate  Presbytery  into  their  adopted  land.  The  member- 
ship of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church,  previous  to  the 
American  Revolution,  was  parth'  Scotch-Irish,  but  very.dilier- 
ent  in  many  respects  from  the  Scotch  Irisli  which  formed  the 
prevailing  clement  in  the  American  Associate  Church.  The 
Scotch-Irish,  in  connection  with  the  American  Presbyterian 
Church,  were  generally  the  descendants  of  the  Scotch  who  be- 
gan to  leave  their  native  land  and  settle  in  Ireland  during  the 
reign  of  James  I.  For  a  long  period  they  retained  intact  all 
the  prevailing  features  of  Scotch  Presbyterianism.  But  grad- 
ually the  leaven  which  had  been  opei'ating  in  the  churches  in 
England  and  on  the  continent  of  Europe  was  introduced,  cau- 
tiously at  first,  but  openly  and  defiantly  after  a  short  interval, 
into  the  Church  of  both  Scotland  and  Ireland.  The  beginning 
of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  formation  of  the 

BELFAST    SOCIETY 

marks  the  period  of  the  visible  introduction  of  error  in  doc- 
trine and  laxity  in  practice  into  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Ireland.  The  same  period  is  noted  as  the  beginning  of  a  vis- 
ible decline  in  the  Church  of  Scotland.  To  the  Rev.  John 
Simson,  professor  of  divinity  in  the  University  of  Glasgow, 
and  his  adherents  is  due  the  credit  of  disturbing  the  peace  and 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  169 

harmony  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  the  leaders  of  the 
corrupting  part}'  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland  were 
the  Revs,  John  Abernethy,  AV  illiam  Taylor,  Alexander  Brown 
and  James  Kirkpatrick.  Abernethy  and  Kirkpatrick  had 
been  students  with  Simson  in  the  Divinity  Hall  in  Glasgow, 
and  ever  afterwards  kept  up  with  him  a  regular  correspondence. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  note  that  nearly  all  the  ministers  who 
joined  the  Belfast  Society  had  been  either  the  fellow  students 
of  Professor  Simson  or  had  been  his  pupils.  From  this  fact  it 
may  be  naturally  inferred  that  the  doctrines  of  Professor  Sim- 
son and  the  doctrines  of  the  Belfast  Society  were,  in  the  main, 
identical.  This  is  not  a  bare  inference,  but  it  is  a  fact  well  sub- 
stantiated by  history. 

Those  who  opposed  the  doctrinal  innovations  of  Professor 
Simson  were  ever  regarded  as  the  more  strict  party,  and  by  the 
more  rigid  of  this  strict  party  was  organized  the  Associate 
Presbj'tery.  In  Ireland  the  party  which  opposed  the  Belfast 
Societ}'  belonged  generally  to  the  emigration  from  Scotland, 
which  occurred  during  the  reign  of  Charles  IL,  and  were  re- 
garded as  more  closel}'  resembling  in  doctrine  and  worship  the 
Church  of  Scotland  at  a  period  long  past  than  they  did  either 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland  or  the  Church  of  Scotland 
as  these  churches  then  existed.  It  was  by  those  who  set  them- 
selves in  opposition  to  the  innovations  introduced  by  the  Bel- 
fast Society  that  the  Associate  Church  Avas  introduced  into 
Ireland. 

It  is  common  in  some  sections  to  regard  Irish,  English  and 
Scotch  Presbyterian  ism  as  identical  in  doctrine,  and  the  same 
in  their  mode  of  worship  and  form  of  government.  This  is 
far  from  the  truth.  English  Presbj-terianism,  especially  at 
the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking,  resembled  Independency 
full}'  as  much  as  it  did  Scotch  Presbyterianism.  In  America 
it  has  lost  all,  or  nearly  all,  its  Presbyterian  features,  and  fully 
developed  its  Independency  and  the  peculiar  notions  advocated 
by  both  Professor  Simson,  of  Glasgow,  and  John  Abernethy,. 
of  Ireland.  Irish  Presbyterianism  has  ever  been  of  a  better  /-^ 
type  than  that  of  England.  Still,  its  standard,  as  exhibited  in 
actual  practice,  has  ever  been  of  a  more  flexible  character  than 
that  of  the  Scotch.  The  Seceders  and  Covenanters  preserved — 
the  former  slightly  modified  and  modernized,  the  latter  in  all 


170  HISTORY    OF    THE 

its  picturesque  majesty — the  Scotch  type  -of  Presbj'terianism. 
In  America  both  Seceder  and  Covenanter  Churches  were  often 
called  "  Scotch  Churches,"  and  the  members  of  these  denomi- 
nations were  called  "  Scotch  people,"  and  more  frequently,  "big- 
oted Scotchmen."  The  Presbyterian  Church  had  been  planted 
in  America  about  fifty  years  before  the  Secession  Church  had 
an  actual  existence.  Leaving  out  the  Kew  England  Congrega- 
tionalist,  which  was  but  another  name  for  English  Presb}-- 
terianism,  the  mass  of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church  was  of 
Irish  descent,  and  generally  the  descendants  of  the  Scotch  who 
began  to  emigrate  to  Ireland  in  the  reign  of  the  First  of  the 
Stuarts.  They  w^ere  Scotch-Irish-Ulster  Presbyterians  ;  but 
it  was  a  Presb3'terianism  very  different,  in  many  of  its  leading 
features,  from  the  Presbyterianism  embraced  b^^  the  Covenant- 
ers and  Associates. 

It  is  not  the  province  of  the  mere  historian  to  say  which  was 
best  or  which  was  worst ;  which  was  genuine,  or  which  was 
spurious.  We  may  safely  say  neither  was  spurious  ;  but  Ulster 
Presbyterianism  was  more  pliable,  less  rigid,  and  exhibited  an 
affinity  for  the  Congregationalism  of  English  Puritans,  which 
to  both  the  Associates  and  Covenanters  was  for  a  long  period 
intolerable. 

The  peculiar  features  which  characterized  these  three 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  one  hundred  years  ago, 
are,  to  a  very  noticeable  extent,  preserved  to  the  present  day. 
They  have  enough  in  common  to  show  that  they  had  the  same 
origin  and  enough  of  diflerence  to  warrant  tliem  in  maintain- 
ing  distinct  and  separate  organizations.  The  opposition  to  a 
union  between  the  Associates  and  the  Presbyterian  Church 
was  ever  almost  entirely  confined  to  the  Associates.  At  no 
time  would  there  have  been  any  difficulty  in  consummating  a 
union,  so  far  as  the  Presbyterian  Church  was  concerned.  It  is 
true  that  so  far  as  is  remembered,  no  formal  eflJbrt  ever  was 
made  to  form  an  union  between  the  Covenanters  and  Presby- 
terians ;  but  had  such  an  effi3rt  been  made,  its  only  opponents 
would,  in  all  probability,  have  been.  Covenanters. 

However  great  may  be  the  general  resemblance  existing  be- 
tween the  Presbyterian  Church  of  either  America,  England  or 
Ireland,  and  either  the  Reformed  l^resbyterian  Church  or  the 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  ITl 

Associate  or  Associate  Reformed  Church,  there  always  have 
been,  and  are  to-day  particulars,  both  in  doctrine  and  worship, 
in  which  they  widely  diifer. 

The  only  real  diflerence,  however,  which  existed  between 
the  Associates  and  Covenanters  was  with  reference,  as  has  been 
already  stated,  to  the  extent  of  the  power  of  the  civil  mao'is- 
trate.  This  diflerence  was  really  removed  by  the  position  taken 
by  both  parties  in  the  struggle  in  which  the  American  colonies 
were  engaged.  The  Associates  were,  to  a  man,  Whigs,  and  if 
there  was  a  Tory  among  the  Covenanters  he  was  a  recreant  to 
his  avowed  principles  and  covenanted  engagements,  and  so  was 
no  longer  a  Covenanter.  The  Covenanter  Church  and  the  As- 
sociate Church  were  planted  in  America  by  the  same  race  of 
people  and  near  the  same  time.  The  Rev.  John  Cuthbertsou 
came  to  America  in  1751,  and  the  Rev.  Alexander  Gellatly  in 
1753.  The  Held  occupied  by  these  pioneers  was  the  same  ;  and 
although  the  Associates  and  Covenanters  in  Scotland  and  Ire- 
land looked  upon  each  other  with  a  suspicious  eye,  in  America 
they  cultivated  each  other's  friendship,  and  took  a  deep  inter- 
est in  each  other's  welfare.  A  pure  and  heaven-l^orn  magnet- 
ism began  to  attract  the  parties  towards  each  other  so  soon  as 
they  set  their  feet  on  American  soil.  They  had  buried  at  least 
much  of  their  animosities  in  the  Atlantic,  and  now  sought  the 
things  which  make  for  peace.  Imperceptibl}^,  and  by  a  power 
like  those  infinitesimal  forces  which  are  apparently  nothing  at 
any  particular  moment,  but  which  finally  move  mountains,  the 
parties  were  drawn  together. 

Thefirstformal  meeting  for  conference  was  held  in  the  house  of 
Samuel  Patterson,  at  Donegal,  Lancaster  county,  Pa.,  on  the  30th 
of  September,  1777.  Previous  to  this,  the  subject  of  union  be- 
tween these  two  Scotch  branches  of  the  Presbvterian  Church  in 
America,  had  been,  in  all  probabilit}^,  discussed  in  private. 
Many  years  previous  to  the  arrival  of  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Mat- 
thew Linn  and  Alexander  Dobbin,  the  Rev.  John  Cuthbertsou 
and  the  Associate  ministers  then  in  America  had  often  met. 
So  far  as  anything  to  the  contrary  appears,  the  Associate  min- 
isters and  John  Cuthbertson  lived  on  terms  of  social  intimacy 
and  ecclesiastical  and  religious  friendship. 


172  HISTORY    OF    THE 

When,  then,  it  is  said  that  the  first  conference  for  union  was 
on  the  30th  of  September,  1777,  all  that  is  meant  is  that  prior 
to  that  date  no  formal  action  had  been  taken  in  the  matter. 

Both  the  Associates  and  Covenanters  belonged  to  that  class 
of  men  who  think  before  they  act.  "^Vith  some  plausibility 
they  might  be  charged  with  having  been  self-willed  and  opin- 
ionated, but  not  with  rashness.  Thc}^  never  came  to  a  conclu- 
sion until  they  had  examined  the  matter  thoroughly  in  all  its 
present  and  future  bearings.  Having,  by  rather  a  tedious  pro- 
cess, reached  a  conclusion,  they  ceased  to  reason  and  began  to 
act  promptly,  determinedly  and  fearlessly.  It  was  near  five 
years  before  the  union  was  consummated,  and  not  until  after 
the  parties  had  met  in  conference  more  than  twenty  times. 
At  tlie  first  conference,  onl}^  the  Rev.  John  Cuthbertson,of  the 
Eeformed  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  Eevs.  John  Smith, 
James  Proudfoot  and  Matthew  Henderson,  of  the  Associate 
Church,  were  present.  At  this  meeting  little  was  done  except 
appointing  a  time  and  selecting  a  place  for  another  meeting. 
The  second  meeting  was  appointed  to  be  held  at  Pequa,  Pa., 
on  March  31,  1778.  At  this  conference  all  the  Covenanter 
ministers  were  present,  and  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Proudfoot,  Mur- 
ray, Clarkson  and  Smith,  of  the  Associate  Presb3^tery. 

As  many  as  three  conferences  were  lield  before  the  matter 
was  brought  before  the  Associate  Presbytery  in  a  judicial 
capacity.  The  object  of  these  first  conferences  seems  to  have 
been  to  ascertain  privately  the  sentiments  of  the  parties.  At 
the  meeting  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  at 
Tohickon,  Bucks  county,  Pa.,  October  21,  1778,  the  following 
overture  Avas  introduced  by  Rev.  John  Murray  : 

■■  That  this  Presbytery  expressly  nominate  and  appoint,  some  week  hereafter, 
as  soon  as  convenience  will  permit,  to  take  into  serious  consideration  the  subject 
of  the  proposed  union  with  the  Covenanters,  and  to  confer  with  them  in  an  ami- 
cable manner  on  the  same  subject,  in  order  to  try  whether  or  not  a  coalescence 
can  be  brought  about  in  consistency  with  the  glory  of  God  and  the  cause  of  truth 
and  the  comfort  of  the  Church.  And  for  proceeding  in  this  matter  with  greater 
regularity,  it  is  further  projjosed  that  this  Presbytery  set  apart  one  of  the  days 
of  the  week  that  may  be  nominated  for  the  conference,  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
ferring together  by  themselves  on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  union,  and  for 
solemn  prayer  unto  God  for  his  special  direction  in  this  matter."' 

This  overture  was  not  adopted;  but  what  was  its  equivalent, 
was.  A.  meeting  for  conference  with  the  Covenanters  had  pre- 
viously been  appointed,  to  be  held  at  ^liddle  Octoraro,  on  the- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  173 

29tb  of  October.  The  Associate  Presbytery  of  rennsylvania 
agreed  to  meet  at  tlie  place  selected  for  the  conference,  on  the 
27th,  t\vo  days  before  the  time  appointed  for  the  conference. 
Eight  ministers  and  live  ruling  elders,  in  connection  witli  the 
Associate  rresb3'tery  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Rev.  John  Mason 
iind  the  Rev.  Thomas  C'lark,  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Xew 
York,  were  present  at  the  meeting  of  the]  Presbytery  on  the 
-27th,  and  at  the  meeting  of  the  conference,  on  the  29th  of  Oc- 
tober, 1778.  All  the  members  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery 
were  present. 

In  the  meeting  of  the  Associate  Presbyter}',  at  this  time,  the 
principal  subject  discussed  was  the  propriety  of  holding  a  con- 
ference with  the  Reformed  Presbytery.  The  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania  consumed  two  days  in  discussing  this 
•question.  In  the  debates,  Messrs.  Mason  and  Clark,  of  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Xew  York,  took  part.  At  length  it  was 
agreed,  whether  unanimously  or  not  is  not  certainly  Jcnown, 
but  most  probably  not,  to  hold  the  conference.  Messrs.  Smith 
and  Rodgers  were  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  the  sub- 
jects to  be  considered  by  the  conference. 

At  10  o'clock  the  conference  met.  It  consisted  of  John 
Murray,  James  Proudfoot,  Matthew  Henderson,  William 
Marshall,  John  Smith,  James  Clarkson  and  William  Logan, 
ministers;  and  William  Moore,  James  Brown,  Robert  Thom- 
son, William  Pinley  and  Alexander  Moore,  ruling  elders  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania;  the  Rev.  John 
Mason  and  the  Rev.  Thomas  Clark,  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  ISTew  York ;  and  John  Cuthbertsou,  Matthew  Linn  and 
Alexander  Dobbin,  ministers  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery. 

Messrs.  Smith  and  Rodgers  presented  the  foUowiug^subjects 
for  the  consi(^eration  of  the  conference,  viz.:  "Redemption." 
"  The  Origin  and  Channel  of  Civil  Government."  "  The  Moral 
Law."  "The  Kingdom  of  Christ,"  "  The  Qualilications  of 
Civil  Rulers."  "The  Obligation  of  our  Solemn  Covenants." 
"  The  Lawfulness  of  Civil  Establishments  in  Religion."  •'  The 
Reformed  Presbyterian's  Testimon}-." 

After  a  free  and  full  interchange  of  opinions,  it  was  found 
that  considerable  diversity  of  sentiment  existed  among  the 
members  of  the  Conference.  Associates  diifered  from  Asso- 
ciates, and  Covenanters  from  Covenanters  about  as  much  as 


1T4  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Associates  differed  from  Covenanters.  •  Some  were  of  the  opin- 
ion that  all  negotiations  having  in  view  an  union  of  the  two 
bodies  should  be  dropped.  The  majority,  however,  thought 
differently,  and  tlie  following  pro})Ositions  as  a  basis  of  union 
were  drawn  up : 

1.  That  Jesus  Christ  died  only  for  the  elect. 

2.  That  there  is  an  appropriation  in  the  nature  of  faith. 

3.  That  the  gospel  is  indiscriminately  addressed  to  mankind  sinners. 

4.  That  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  alone  proper  condition  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace. 

n.  That  civil  power  originates  from  God  as  Creator,  and  not  from  Christ  as 
Mediator. 

6.  That  magistracy,  in  i-espect  of  its  sanctified  use.  is  dispensed  by  Christ,  to 
whom  the  Kingdom  of  Providence  is  committed,  in  subserviency  to  the  King- 
dom of  Grace. 

7.  That  the  law  of  nature  and  the  moral  law  revealed  in  the  Bible,  are  sub- 
stantially the  same,  though  the  latter  expresses  the  will  of  God  far  more  fully 
than  the  former  ;  and  that  therefore  among  Christians,  magistracy  and  the  du- 
ties thereunto  belonging,  are  subject  to  the  general'  directions  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 

8.  That  some  qualifications  are  in  Scripture  required  as  essentially  needful  to 
the  being  of  magistracy  ;  such  as  wisdom,  justice  and  veracity,  in  due  propor- 
tions ;  but  the  profession  of  the  true  religion  is  not  absolutely  needful  to  the 
being  of  magistracy,  except  when  it  is  made  by  the  people  a  consideration  of 
government,  but  is  at  all  times  of  great  nece.ssity  to  the  well  being  of  civil  gov- 
ernment. 

The  above  propositions  were  submitted  for  future  considera- 
tion, without  any  discussion  at  the  time. 

Having  agreed  to  hold  the  next  meeting  at  Pequa,  Pa.,  on 
June  9,  1779,  the  conference  adjourned. 

From  all  the  documents  which  have  been  preserved,  it  seems 
that  the  opposition  to  the  contemplated  union  was  confined 
mainly  to  the  Associates.  The  Covenanter  ministers  and  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  people  belonging  to  the  Reformed 
Presbytejy,  were,  from  the  l)eginning  of  these  conferences,  will- 
ing and  anxious  to  form  a  union  with  the  Associate  Presbytery. 
Although  the  Covenanters  were  ever  regarded  as  the  more  rigid 
in  all  their  notions  of  doctrine  and  practice,  they .  entertained 
great  regard  for  the  Associate  Presbytery.  This  was  the  case 
with  the  "  Society  People  "  prior  to  the  organization  of  the- 
Reformed  Presbytery  in  Scotland,  in  1743.  It  is  true  that 
both  Covenanters  and  Seceders,  while  in  Scotland,  did  things, 
in   their  intercourse   with  each  other,  which  may  be  rightly 


.     ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  1"5 

named  puerile.  The  result  of  these  i^uerile  a«t3  was  an  aliena- 
tion of  feeling  which  was  sometimes  developed  into  acts  of 
hostility. 

In  America  both  parties  suffered  the  bitter  feelings  of  the 
unsociable  and  unhappy  past  to  die. 

There  were,  however,  some  persons  in  the  Associate  Presbj'- 
tery  who  opposed  with  all  their  might  and  main  all  corre- 
spondence with  the  Covenanters.  The  leaders  of  this  opposing 
jiarty  were  the  Rev.  Messrs.  James  Clarkson  and  AYilliam  Mar- 
shall, both  members  of  the  Associate  Presbyter}-  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

The  next  meeting  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  was  held 
at  Big  Spring,  on  ^May  26,  1779.  All  the  members,  except 
Messrs.  Marshall  and  Henderson,  were  present.  The  eight 
propositions  which  had  been  submitted  as  a  basis  of  union 
Avere  taken  up  and  considered  seriatim.  The  first,  second,, 
third,  fourth  and  fifth  were  unanimously  adopted,  but  the  last 
three  were  rejected  and  the  following  substituted  in  their 
stead : 

Ck  That  the  Kingdom  of  Providence  is  committed  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
by  the  Father,  in  subserviency  to  his  Spiritual  Kingdom  in  the  churcli.  Magis- 
tracy, as  well  as  other  common  benefits,  he  limits,  directs  and  overrules  for  ob- 
taining that  great  end. 

7.  That  though  the  law  of  nature  be  the  grand  foundation  of  magistracy,  and 
the  only  proper  standard  by  which  every  civil  ruler  can  be  directed  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  his  government ;  yet  for  obtaining  the  full  advantage  of  the 
great  ends  of  his  office,  the  peace  and  happiness  of  civil  society,  he  is  indispen- 
sably bound  to  receive  the  aid  that  supernatural  revelation  (if  in  the  possession 
of  it)  offers  for  the  obtaining  of  that  important  end. 

8.  That  some  degree  of  personal  qualifications,  and  that  of  a  moral  kind,  such 
as  wisdom,  justice,  knowledge,  &c.,  are  absolutely  necessary  to  render  any  indi- 
vidual capable  of  being  invested  with  any  civil  office,  and  are  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  the  right  administration  of  that  office  is  a  truth  clearly  indicated  by  the 
law  of  nature  ;  and  although  the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  the  practice  of 
holiness,  with  other .  evidences  of  a  person's  interest  in  Christ  (all  of  which  is 
the  prerogative  of  Scripture  to  reveal),  are  of  great  use  to  civil  society,  and  the 
administration  of  civil  power  in  that  society,  yet  they  are'  not  revealed  in  the 
law  of  nature  ;  therefore,  are  not  the  origin  of  civil  power,  nor  the  rule  of  its 
administration,  but  only  of  its  advantage. 

It  is  certainly  not  very  easy  to  discover  wherein  these  pro- 
positions difier  from  those  submitted  "for  future  considera- 
tion ''  at  the  meeting  of  the  conference  in  October,  1778.     All 
he  difierence  that  can  be  discovered  is  in  the  words  in  which. 


176  HISTORY    OF    THE 

the  same  ideas  are  expressed.  The  Associate  Presbytery  seems 
to  have  concluded,  at  least  some  of  its  members  concluded,  that 
the  propositions  submitted  by  the  conference  of  1778  for  con- 
sideration at  the  ajjproaching  conference  were  too  vague,  and 
capabjc  of  different  interpretations. 

The  conference  met,  according  to  adjournment,  at  Pequa, 
Pa.,  on  the  9th  of  June,  1779.  All  the  ministers  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Reformed  Presbytery  and  three  ruling  elders, 
viz.:  William  Brown,  James  McKnight  and  David  Dunwid- 
die,  were  present.  Of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsyl- 
vania there  were  present  James  Proudfoot,  James  Clarkson, 
William  Marshall  and  John  Smith,  ministers;  and  Eobcrt  Ait- 
ken,  Samuel  Harper  and  William  Moore,  ruling  elders.  Rob- 
ert Annan  and  William  Logan,  ministers,  and  ruling  elder 
William  Gillespie,  were  present  from  the  Associate  Presbyter}- 
of  Xew  York. 

The  Rev.  James  Clarkson  was  chosen  president  of  the  con- 
ference. The  propositions  submitted  at  Middle  Octoraro  "for 
future  consideration"  as  a  basis  of  union  were  read,  and  then 
the  amendments  made  by  the  Associate  Presbyter}-  of  Penn- 
sylvania were  read. 

The  Covenanters  were  read}'  to  accept  the  former,  but  ob- 
jected to  the  alterations  made  by  the  Associate  Presbytery.  A 
long  and  warm  debate  followed,  which  those  who  were  op- 
posed to  the  contemplated  union  probably  thought,  and  cer- 
tainly hoped,  would  put  an  end  forever  to  all  negotiations. 

The  hair-splitting  differences  which  existed  between  Cov- 
enanters and  Seceders  were  all  stated  and  discussed  with  an 
ability  which  did  credit  to  the  debaters.  The  blood  of  the 
Covenanter  Matthew  Linn  became  stirred,  and  he  concluded  his 
speech  with  the  following  sentence:  "You  may  agree  to  what 
propositions  you  please,  but  we  Covenanters  will  agree  to  none 
but  with  this  interpretation,  that  all  power  and  ability  civil 
rulers  have  are  from  Christ  the  Prophet  of  the  Covenant,  and 
all  the  food  and  raiment  mankind  enjoy  are  from  Christ  the 
Priest  of  the  Covenant." 

To  something  contained  in  this  sentence  some  of  the  Asso- 
ciates formed  serious  objections.  Surelj'  it  was  not  to  the  sen- 
timent, for  it  is  .clearly  defensible  on  the  plainest  Bible  princi- 
ples.    Paul  says,  Ephesians  I.,  22,  that  God  the  Father  "hath 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  Ill 

put  all  things  under  His  (Christ's)  feet  and  gave  Him  to  be  the 
head  over  all  things  to  the  Church."  Certainly,  Matthew  Linn 
did  not  say  more  than  Paul  says,  nor  did  he  say  anything  con- 
tra rj"  to  Avhat  Paul  says. 

Since  the  parties  could  not  agree  upon  the  propositions  now 
before  the  conference,  it  was  agreed  by  a  majority'  that  Rev. 
Messrs.  John  Smith,  Robert  Annan,  John  Cuthbertson  and 
Alexander  Dobbin  be  appointed  a  committee  to  draw  up  other 
propositions.  Every  member  of  this  committee  was  intensely 
anxious  that  the  uniou  of  the  two  bodies  be  consummated  at 
as  early  a  da^'  as  possible.  It  is  not  asserting  too  much  to  say 
that  they  were  men  of  more  than  ordinary  abilit3^ 

In  a  ver}'  short  time,  the  committee  reported  propositions 
which  were  acceptable  to  the  majority,  and  formed  the  maiu 
part  of  the  basis  upon  which  the  union  was  finally  consum- 
mated. 

Since  the  union  which  formed  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
•cannot  be  clearly  understood  unless  the  basis  upon  which  that 
union  was  founded  is  known,  all  the  propositions  contained -in 
that  basis  will  now  be  stated  in  the  order  in  which  they  were 
finally  agreed  upon  and  adopted  : 

1.  That  Jesus  Christ  died  for  the  elect  only. 

2.  That  there  is  an  appropriation  in  the  nature  of  faith. 

3.  That  the  gospel  is  indiscriminately  addressed  to  sinners  of  mankind. 

i.  That  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  alone  proper  condition  of  the  cov- 
enant of  grace. 

5.  That  civil  power  originates  from  God  the  Creator,  and  not  from  Christ  the 
Mediator. 

6.  That  the  administration  of  the  Kingdom  of  Providence  is  committed  to 
Jesus  Christ  the  Mediator;  and  magistracy,  the  ordinance  appointed  by  the 
moral  Governor  of  the  world  to  be  the  pillar  or  prop  of  civil  order  among  men, 
as  well  as  other  things,  is  rendered  subservient  by  the  Mediator  to  the  welfare 
of  His  spiritual  kingdom,  the  Church,  and  beside  the  Church  has  the  sanctified 
use  of  that  and  every  common  benefit,  through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

7.  That  the  law  of  nature  and  the  moral  law  revealed  in  Scripture  are  sub- 
stantially the  same,  although  the  latter  expresses  the  will  of  God  more  evidently 
and  clearly  than  the  former:  and  therefore  magistrates  among  Christians  ought 
to  be  regulated  by  the  general  directory  of  the  Word  as  to  the  execution  of  their 
offices  in  faithfulness  and  righteousness. 

8.  That  the  qualifications  of  justice,  veracity.  &c..  required  in  the  law  of  na- 
ture for  the  being  of  a  magistrate,  are  also  more  explicitly  and  clearly  revealed 
as  necessary  in  Scripture.  But  a  religious  test  any  farther  than  an  oath  of 
fidelity  can  never  be  essentially  necessary  to  the  being  of  a  magistrate,  except 
when  the  people  make  it  a  condition  of  government;  then  it  may  be  among 
that  people  necessary  by  their  own  voluntary  deed. 

13 


178  HISTORY    OF    THE 

9.  That  both  parties,  when  united,  shall  adhere  to  the  AVestminster  Confession- 
of  Faith;  Catechisms.  Larger  and  Shorter;  Directory  for  Worship,  and  Propo- 
sitions concerning  Church  Government. 

10.  That  they  shall  claim  the  full  exercise  of  church  discijjline  without  de. 
pendence  on  foreign  judicatories. 

To  the  consummation  of  the  miion  upon  the  basis  set  forth 
in  the  above  propositions,  the  majority  of  both  parties  were- 
agreed.  There  were,  however,  quite  a  number  of  persons,  both 
Covenanters  and  Associates,  who  were,  it  may  safely  be  said,, 
violently  opposed  to  an  union  on  any  terms  whatever,  and 
there  were  others  who  were  conscientiously  opposed  to  it  on 
the  proposed  basis. 

That  all  parties  might  have  time  to  reflect,  and  that  all  causes- 
pending  before  any  of  the  three  presbyteries  might  be  finally 
adjudicated,  the  union  was  not  consummated  at  this  conference.. 
At  Kew  Perth  (now  Salem),  Xew  York,  in  the  spring  of  1780,. 
the  proposed  basis  of  union  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the 
Presbyter}^  of  ISTew  York.  The  same  basis  of  union  was  unan- 
imously adopted  by  the  Reformed  Presbytery,  at  a  meeting 
held  at  Donegal,  Pa.,  about  the  1st  of  December,  1781.  It  was 
not,  however,  until  the  loth  of  June,  1782,  that  the  basis  of 
union  was  accepted  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  then  not  unanimousl}^,  but  l)y  a  bare  majoritj'.  This- 
was  at  Pequa,  Pa. 

There  were  several  causes  which  had  a  direct  tendency  to 
delay  the  union  on  the  part  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania. 

The  main  reason,  however,  was  the  number  and  zeal  of  those 
who  were  opposed  to  the  union.  The  majority  of  the  minis- 
ters in  connection  with  the  presbytery  finally  went  into  the 
union.  In  fact,  all  the  ministers,  except  James  Clarkson  and 
William  Marshall,  acceded  to  the  basis  of  union.  These  two 
w^orthy  men,  together  wath  Robert  Hunter,  James  Thomson 
and  Alexander  Moore,  ruling  elders,  protested  and  appealed 
to  the  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland.  Some  of  those  who  went 
into  the  union  had,  at  times  during  the  negotiations,  opposed 
it,  and  at  last,  with  some  degree  of  reluctance,  consented  to 
its  consummation.  At  any  period  during  the  five  years'  ne- 
crotiations,  there  were  in  the  Associate  Presbvtery  of  Penn- 
syivania  a  majority  in  favor  of  the  union,  but  there  were  al- 
ways some  who  were  opposed  to  it  on  any  and  all  terms. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  179 

There  was  another  cause  of  delay  on  the  part  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  in  consummating  the  union. 
There  were  before  the  Presbytery  a  number  of  cases  requiring 
adjudication.  It  was  a  general  understanding  among  the  par- 
ties that  each  Presbytery  should  adjust  all  matters  of  this  kind 
before  it  entered  the  Union  Church. 

The  13th  of  June,  1782,  marks  the  date  of  the  union  of  the 
three  presbyteries  which  formed  the  Associate  Reformeci 
Church.  The  formal  consummation  of  the  union,  however,  did 
not  take  place  until  Friday,  the  1st  of  I^sTovember,  1782.  In 
the  house  of  V/illiam  Richards,  on  Wednesday,  the  30tli  of 
October,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  ISTew  York,  and  the  Reformed  Presbytery,, 
met  in  convention  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  and  for  two  days 
were  engaged  in  making  the  necessar}^  arrangements  for  the 
formal  consummation  of  the  long-desired  union.  On  the  1st 
day  of  November,  1782,  they  met,  and  having  chosen  the  Rev. 
John  Mason  moderator,  in  due  form  organized  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod,  The  following  members  were  present:  Of 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania— James  Proudfoat, 
John  Rodgers,  William  Logan  and  John  Smith,  ministers  ;  Jo- 
seph Miller  and  Thomas  Douglass,  ruling  elders.  Of  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  New  York — John  Mason,  Robert  Annan, 
ministers  ;  William  McKinley,  ruling  elder.  Of  the  Reformed 
Presbytery — John  Cuthbertson,  Matthew  Linn  and  Alexander 
Dobbin,  ministers;  James  Bell,  John  Cochran  and  Robert  Pat- 
terson, M.  D.,  ruling  elders. 

The  naimes  of  those  ministers  constituting  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  at  the  period  of  its  organization,  were  James 
Proudfoot,  Matthew  Henderson,  John  Mason,  Robert  Annan,' 
John  Smith,  John  Rodgers,  Thomas  Clark,  William  Logan, 
John  Murray,  David  Annan,  Associates ;  John  Cuthbertson, 
Alexander  Dobbin,  Matthew  Linn  and  David  Telfair,  Reformed 
Presbyterians — in  all  fourteen. 

The  on]y  other  ministers  in  connection  with  the  Secession 
Church  in  America  at  the  time  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod 
was  organized  were  James  Clarkson  and  William  Marshall. 
Andrew  Patton,  who  was  received  as  a  member  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  at  its  meeting  in  New  York,  October  29, 1774, 
on  credentials  given  by  the  Presbyter}'  of  Moyrah,  Ireland, 


180  HISTORY    OF    THE 

was,  in  1778,  deposed,  and  the  sentence  of  Ino-hei-  excommuni- 
•catioH  pronounced  upon  him  on  account  of  his  scandalous  con- 
duct. James  Martin,  who,  in  August,  1775,  presented  to  the 
Associate  Presbytery  in  America  credentials  from  the  Presby- 
tery of  Moyrah,  Ireland,  was  received  into  the  Presbytery  as  an 
"  ordained  minister  in  o-ood  and  regular  standins;,"  withdrew 
from  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  and  connected 
himself  with  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  now 
the  General  Assembly,  Presbyterian  Church. 

So  far  as  is  known,  there  was  only  one  minister  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Eeformed  Presbj-tery  who  did  not  go  into  the 
union.  Tliis  was  the  Rev.  William  Martin,  of  South  Carolina. 
Mr,  Martin  came  to  America  in  perhaps  the  early  part  of  1772. 
He  began  his  ministerial  labors  on  liocky  Creek,  Chester 
county,  S.  C.,  sometime  in  1772.  Unfortunately,  among  his 
many  good  and  noble  traits  of  Christian  character,  he  had  the 
bad  habit,  by  far  too  common  at  that  time,  of  indulging  too 
freely  in  the  social  glass.  Por  the  sin  of  intemperance  he  was 
■silenced,  and  consequently  at  the  time  the  Associate  Reformed 
■Synod  w^as  organized  he  was  not  in  good  standing. 

The  design  aimed  at  by  those  forming  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  was  certainly  praiseworthy.  In  America  there 
were  two  denominations  of  Christians  having  the  same  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  and  all  wliose  forms  of  worship  were,  even  to 
the  smallest  minutite,  the  same.  That  these  two  denominations 
might  coalesce,  and  form  but  one,  certainly  was  the  single  and 
only  purpose  which  those  good  men  labored  to  effect.  That 
they  desired  tliat  this  union  should  be  effected  in  accordance 
with  the  plain  principles  of  God's  word,  and  thus  redound  to 
the  glory  of  God  in  the  propagation  of  the  pure  and  unadulter- 
ated gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  no  one  will  doubt  who  knows 
anything  of  the  history  of  either  the  Associates  or  the  Cove- 
nanters. 

Pure  and  holy  as  was  their  motive,  and  arduous  and  inde- 
fatigable as  W'Cre  their  efforts,  they  only  partially  succeeded. 
The  union  was  formed,  as  we  have  seen,  but  as  we  have  also 
seen,  it  was  not  a  complete  union.  Two  ministers,  William 
Marshall  and  James  Clarkson — the  former  pastor  of  the  Asso- 
ciate congregation  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  latter 
pastor  of  the  Associate  Church  in  Guinston,  York  county,  Pa., 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  181 

together  with  all,  or  nearly  all,  of  the  members  of  their  congre- 
gations— rejcered  the  basis  of  union  and  continued  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Associate  Presbytery.  Notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  all  the  ministers  in  connection  with  the  Reformed  Pres- 
bytery, and  a  very  large  majority  of  the  ruling  elders  and  lay 
members  in  connection  with  that  eluireh,  went  into  the  union, 
still  there  were  some  who  could  not  see  their  way  clear  to  unite 
with  the  Associates  and  thus  form  but  one  denomination.  The 
result  of  the  union  was,  contrar}-  to  that  designed,  the  forma- 
tion of  another  denomination,  instead  of  organizing  two  into 
one.  This  was  to  be  deplored,  and  if  we  take  only  a  surface 
view  of  the  subject,  we  will  be  ready  to  censure  severely  both 
Covenanters  and  Associates,  who  were  instrumental  in  bring- 
ing about  such  a  state  of  things.  If,  however,  we  will  look 
into  the  matter  raore  closely,  and  view  it  in  the  light  of  God's 
word  and  Providence,  our  conclusion  will  be  of  a  far  different 
character. 

Parties,  both  in  church  and  state,  are  to  be  deplored  ;  but  so 
long  as  the  present  condition  of  things  remains,  they  are  neces- 
sary. The  people  of  God  are  at  present  no  more  prepared  to 
be  united  into  one  ecclesiastical  organization  than  the  inliabit- 
ants  of  the  world  are  prepared  to  be  organized  into  one  gov- 
ernment. It  will  be  most  readily  admitted  that  there  is  but 
one  church,  just  as  there  is  liut  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one 
God  and  Father  of  us  all,  and  that  the  divisions  in  the  visible 
church  have  been  produced  by  the  enemy  of  all  good.  So  w^e 
learn  were  the  tares  in  the  wheat.  The  husbandman  sowed 
wheat,  but  the  enemy  sowed  tares.  It  is  the  duty  and  privi- 
lege of  all  God's  people  to  pray  that  these  divisions  in  the 
church  may  be  healed  ;  but  it  is  the  province  of  the  King  and 
Head  of  the  church  to  overrule  them  for  his  own  glory  and  the 
good  of  all  his  people. 

Generally,  in  union  there  is  strength,  but  huge  masses  are 
not  often  pure,  and  frequently  they  are  ver}^  weak.  The  little 
stream  that  noiselessly  steals  its  way  through  a  small  fissure 
in  the  rock  is  clear  and  sparkling,  while  the  waters  collected 
in  majestic  rivers  are  turbid.  There  is  a  moral  strength  in 
ipurity  which  is  not  in  union.  In  the  church,  purity  is  first. 
The  order  established  by  its  divine  Head  is  "•first  pure,  then 
peaceable."     The  existence  of  three  Christian  denominations 


1S2  HISTORY    OF    THE 

which  resulted  from  the  organization  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  rather  than  one  formed  h}'  the  union  of  two, 
was  attended  by  some  evils,  but  it  was  certainly  not  without 
some  good  results. 

William  Marshall  and  James  Olarkson  went  to  work  with 
that  zeal  and  energy  and  self- sacrifice  which  has  ever  charac- 
terized Associate  ministers.  The  fragments  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  were  gathered  up  and  reorganized,  and  with  the 
blessing  of  God  the  old  church  grew  and  waxed  strong.  It 
did  this  under  the  most  unfavorable  circumstances.  Thus  it 
continued  until  1858— a  period  of  seventy-six  years — when  its 
twenty-one  Presbyteries,  three  hundred  and  twenty-six  minis- 
ters and  licentiates,  and  twenty- three  thousand  five  hundred 
and  five  communicants  went  into  the  union  which  formed 
the  United  Presbyterian  Church  of  ISTorth  America.  The  few 
Covenanters  who  did  not  go  into  the  union  formed  themselves 
into  Societies,  and  with  the  moral  heroism  of  martyrs,  they 
<'lung  to  the  covenanting  principles  of  their  illustrious  ancestors. 
They  petitioned  the  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Scotland  for  min- 
isterial assistance.  This,  in  due  time,  was  granted,  and  a  kind 
and  merciful  God  continues  to  preserve  in  America  the  Cove- 
nanter, with  all  the  main  features  wliich  marked  liim  during 
the  reign  of  William  and  Mary. 

The  Associate,  Associate  Reformed  and  the  Covenanter 
Churches  were  to  each  other  at  least  an  incentive  to  action. 
More  than  this.  They  prevented  each  other  from  pursuing 
devious  courses. 

What,  it  is  asked,  is  the  present  mission  of  the  Covenanter 
Church  in  America?  Nothing  I  is  the  prompt  and  positive 
reph^  which  comes  from  the  whole  of  the  American  people, 
except  a  fractional  part,  too  small  to  be  estimated.  The  mul- 
titude, both  in  church  and  state,  find  in  the  members  of  the 
Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  fit  objects  for  their  derisive 
scorn.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  there  is  something  pictur- 
esquely grand  in  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  and  it 
has,  in  the  providence  of  God,  a  mission  to  fill ;  otherwise,  it 
would  not  have  been  preserved  for  more  than  two  hundred 
years.  The  continued  existence  in  America  of  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian,  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian,  and  of 
the  United  Presbyterian  Churches,  aftbrds  an  example  of  God's 
preserving  grace  almost  without  a  parallel. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  183 

Eveiy  other  denomination  of  Christians  in  America  has  de- 
parted from  its  old  landmarks  and  become  modernized  and 
Americanized.  Not  only  so  ;  but  the  prevailing  effort  is  to 
discard  the  old  and  adopt  something  new.  The  Seceders  and 
Covenanters  only  have  M^eathered  the  storms  of  innovation. 
They  have  been  stigmatized  as  "  Scotch  bigots,"  as  "  a  pecu- 
lia  people  not  reckoned  with  the  nation."  Infidels  and  world- 
lings have  exhausted  their  resources  of  wit  and  sarcasm  that 
they  might  present  these  "  Scotch  people ''  as  objects  of  de- 
rision ;  and  many,  professing  to  be  followers  of  the  meek 
and  lowly  Jesus,  have  lent  these  infidels  and  worldlings  a 
helping  hand.  Still,  Scotch  Presbyterianism,  in  all  its  rugged 
features,  is  believed  and  taught  by  Seceders  and  Covenanters 
in  America,  and  Seceders  and  Covenanters  form  an  important 
factor  in  the  American  government. 

It  often  happens  in  this  world  that  the  profits  and  honors  of 
useful  inventions  and  remarkable  discoveries  are  not  bestowed 
■upon  the  rightful  persons.  The  "Western  Continent  does  not 
bear  the  name  of  its  discoverer,  and  multitudes  of  inventors 
have  died  in  obscurity  and  bequeathed  to  their  ofl:spring  a 
heritage  of  squalid  poverty.  The  Declaration  of  American 
Independence  and  the  Queensferry  Paper  breathe  the  same 
spirit.  The  former  is  but  the  development  of  the  latter. 
Henry  Hall  and  Donald  Cargill  were  the  authors  of  the 
Queensferry  Paper;  and  either  Thomas  Jefferson,  of  Virginia, 
or  Hezekiah  James  Balch,  of  jS'orth  Carolina,  was  the  author 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Every  idea  contained  in 
the  Declaration  of  American  Independence,  no  matter  who 
wrote  it,  is  contained  in  the  following  single  sentence  in  the 
Queensferry  Paper :  '•  We  do  declare  that  we  shall  set  up  over 
ourselves  and  over  what  God  shall  give  us  power  of,  govern- 
ment and  governors  according  to  the  word  of  God  ;  that  we 
shall  no  more  commit  the  government  of  ourselves  and  the 
making  of  laws  for  us  to  any  one  single  person,  this  kind  of 
government  being  most  liable  to  inconveniences  and  aptest  to 
degenerate  into  tyranny."  This  "  rash  declaration,"  as  it  was 
called  at  the  time,  by  even  the  friends  of  liberty  and  the  foes 
of  tyrants,  was  put  in  circulation  long  before  Jefferson  or 
Balch  was  born. 


184  HISTORY    OF    THE 

To  Donald  Cargill,  Richard  Cameron,  Ebenezer  Erskine, 
Adam  Gib,  John  McMiHan  and  their  coadjutors,  the  Amer- 
ican people  are  largely  indebted  for  their  liberty ;  and  these 
men  lirst  and  most  clearly,  since  the  cessation  of  the  ancient 
Jewish  Theocracy,  demonstrated  to  the  world  that  there  can 
be  a  church  without  a  bishop,  and  a  government  without  a 
kinu'. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  185' 


CHAPTER  XI. 

PRESBYTEKIES  REARRANGED~New  Names  Given  Them  -Presbytery  of 
Lonclonderry — Its  Members — Character  of  the  Congregations  in  Connection 
With  the  Presbytery  of  Londonderry — Synod  Disclaim  all  Responsibility  for 
its  Acts — Joins  the  Synod  of  Albany — Organization  of  the  Presbytery  of  the 
Carolinas  and  Georgia — Organization  of  the  Presbyteries  Previous  to  1822 — 
Four  Synods  Organized — First  Meeting  of  the  General  Synod — Members 
Present — Education  of  Candidates  for  the  Ministry-  -Theological  Seminary 
Founded — John  M.  Mason  Sent  to  Eurojie  in  Behalf  of  the  Theological  Sem- 
inary— His  Success — Returns  Home  Accompanied  by  Five  Ministers  and  One 
Probationer — John  M.  Mason  Chosen  Professor  of  Theology — Other  Theologi- 
cal Seminaries  in  America — Growth  of  the  General  Synod — Disturbing  Ele- 
ments— Associate  Reformed  Church  in  a  Formative  State — Confession  of 
Faith  Adopted  in  1799 — Sections  of  the  Scotch  Confession  Not  Adopted — 
Finally  Amended — Deliverence  of  the  Synod  Concerning  Testimonies — The 
Little  Constitution — Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  Defective — Not  Adopt- 
ed as  a  Whole  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church — First  and  Second  Books 
of  Discipline — Changes  Made  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  by 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church — The  Overture  Published — Its  Object — Mat- 
thew Henderson  Withdraws — Diversity  of  Opinions  Among  the  Fathers  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church — John  Smith's  Difficulty — Judicial  Testimo- 
nies Demanded — Synod  Refused  to  Prepare  a  Testimony — Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 

Previous  to  the  adjournment  of  the  meetino-  at  which  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church  was  formally  orsjanized,  the  three 
presbyteries  constituting  the  Union  Church  were  re-arranged, 
their  boundaries  iixed,  and  their  old  names  dropped.  They 
were  designated  The  First,  The  Second  and  The  Third.  The 
First  Associate  Reformed  Presbytery  embraced  all  the  congre- 
gations in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  east  of  the  Susquehanna 
river.  The  ministers  in  connection  with  it  were  John  Cnth- 
bertson,  David  Telfair,  James  Proudfoot  and  John  Smith. 

The  Second  Associate  Reformed  Presbytery  consisted  of  the- 
following  ministers,  viz. :  Matthew  Henderson,  John  Rogers, 
John  Murray,  William  Logan,  Matthew  Linn  and  Alexander 
Dobbin.  Its  territory  embraced  all  Pennsylvania  .west  of  the 
Susquehanna  river.  This  Presbytery  was  a  continuation  of  the 
old  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania. 


186  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  Third  Associate  Eeforined  Presbytery  consisted  of  the 
congregations  in  IS'ew  York  and  the  Eastern  States.  The  min- 
isters were  John  Mason,  Robert  Annan,  David  Annan  and 
Thomas  CLark.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  First  and  Second  were 
organized  from  the  Reformed  Presbytery  and  the  Associate 
Presbytery  (f  Pennsylvania,  and  that  the  Third  was  simply  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  JSTew  York,  the  name  being  changed. 

The  territorial  limits  of  all  these  Presbyteries  were,  within 
the  period  of  about  four  years,  readjusted  and  the  names  again 
changed.  The  First  was  changed  to  that  of  ISTew  York.  The 
Second  received  the  name.  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania.  The 
Third  Presbytery  was,  in  1786,  divided.  Two  of  its  ministers, 
-John  Mason  and  James  Proudfoot,  with  their  congregations 
and  contiguous  vacancies,  were  annexed  to  the  newly  formed 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  and  the  congregations  in  jSTew  Eng- 
land were  constituted  into  a  presbyter}'  which  was  designated 
the  Presbytery  of  Londonderry.  The  ministers  in  connection 
with  the  Presbytery  of  Londonderry  were  David  Annan,  Wil- 
liam Morrison  and  Samuel  Taggart.  In  1791  the  Synod,  at 
the  request  of  David  Annan,  changed  the  name  to  "  Presby- 
tery of  i^ew  England,"  but  it  was  rarely  so  designated.  The 
jiastoral  charges  in  connection  with  the  Presbytery  of  London, 
derry,  or  ISTew  England,  were  all  in  the  'New  England  States. 
David  Annan  was  pastor  of  Peterborough,  Hillsborough  county, 
New  Hampshire.  He  was  intemperate  in  his  habits,  vulgar  in 
his  conversation  and  abusive  to  his  wife  and  children,  on  which 
latter  account  his  wife  divorced  him.  In  1800  he  was  deposed 
from  the  ministrj^,  after  which  he  went  to  Ireland  and  died  in 
1802.  Samuel  Taggart  was  pastor  of  the  congregation  of  Cole- 
raine,  Franklin  county,  Massachusetts.  In  1803  he  was  elected 
a.  member  of  Congress,  and  for  a  period  of  fourteen  j'ears  de- 
voted his  attention  mainly  to  politics.  William  Morrison,  af- 
terwards Dr.  Morrison,  was  psstor  of  the  congregation  of  Lon. 
donderrj'.  New  Hampshire.  The  congregations  in  connection 
with  the  Presbytery  of  Londonderry  were  all,  or  nearly  all,  dis- 
aflected  congregations,  received  into  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  from  other  denominations.  The  majority  of  these  never 
were  in  full  accord  with  the  principles  and  practices  of  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church.  The  result  was,  that  in  1801,  the 
Presbytery   of  Londondcrr}'  was,  "on  account  of  defections 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  187 

from  the  principles  of  the  Church,  and  insubordination  to  the 
Synod,"  declared  to  be  no  lono-er  in  connection  with  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod.  At  the  same  time  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  "disclaimed  all  responsibility  for  any  of  its 
transactions."  Cut  olf  from  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod, 
it  remained  in  the  odd  capacitj^  of  an  independent  presbytery 
until  1809,  when  it  was  received  into  the  Synod  of  Albau}-  in 
connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  next  Associate  Reformed  Presbytery  which  was  organ- 
ized was  "  The  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia."  This 
organization  w\as  effected  at  Long  Cane,  Abbeville  county,  S. 
C,  on  the  24th  of  February,  1790.  There  Avere  present  at  the 
organization :  Thomas  Clark,  Peter  McMuUan,  John  Boyse, 
David  Bothwell,  ordained  ministers  ;  and  James  Rogers,  licen- 
tiate ;  and  James  McBride  and  AVilliam  Dunlap,  ruling  elders. 
The  territory  embraced  by  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and 
■Georgia  Avas  the  States  of  Xorth  and  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia. 

Previous  to  the  year  1822,  there  Avere  in  connection  with  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church  thirteen  presbyteries.  These  Avere, 
in  addition  to  those  already  mentioned :  The  Second  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania,  organized  at  Yough  Meeting-house,  June 
.24th,  1793.  Ministers — Matthew  Henderson,  John  Jamieson, 
Adam  Rankin  and  Robert  "Warwick.  Territory — all  Avest  of 
the  Allegheny  Mountains.  The  Presbytery  of  AVashington 
AA^as  organized  on  the  14th  of  July,  1794.  Ministers — James 
Proudfoot,  John  Dunlap,  George  Mairs  and  James  IMairs.  On 
the  7tli  of  October,  1799,  Robert  AVarwick,  Adam  Rankin  and 
John  Steele,  members  of  the  Second  Pennsylvania  Presbyter}^, 
living  in  the  State  of  Kentuck}',  Avere,  together  Avith  a  ruling 
elder  from  each  of  their  pastoral  charges,  appointed  by  the 
presbytery  to  which  they  belonged,  a  "  committee  to  meet  from 
time  to  time  and  transact  such  presbyterial  business  as  might 
come  before  them."  On  the  20th  of  May,  1800,  the  Synod  so 
far  sanctioned  this  apparently  irregular  act  of  the  j^resbytery 
as  "  to  adopt  an  order  for  the  organization  of  the  Presbj'tery 
of  Kentucky,  at  such  time  and  place  as  may  he  agreed  upon." 
RcA'.  Adam  Rankin  Avas  appointed  to  preach  the  sermon  usual 
on  such  occasions.  The  organization  Avas  effected,  but  the  pre- 
cise date  is  not  knoAvn. 


188  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  Second  Presbytery  of  the  Caroliiias  and  Georgia  was  or- 
ganized at  Cedar  Spring,  Abbeville  county,  S.  C,  on  the  8th 
of  April,  1801.  The  ministers  in  connection  with  this  presby- 
tery were:  Alexander  Porter,  William  Dixon,  Peter  McMul- 
lan  and  David  Bothwell.  Its  territor}^  was  all  west  of  Broad 
River. 

Big  Spring  Presbytery  was  organized  at  Fermanagh,  Penn- 
sylvania, on  the  18th  of  May,  1803.  The  ministers  in  connec- 
tion with  it  were:  William  Logan,  John  Young,  Thomas 
Smitli,  James  Walker,  James  McConnell,  William  Baldridge 
and  James  Harper,  Jr.  Its  territory-  was  Cumberland  Valley 
and  adjacent  counties  and  south  to  the  James  River. 

On  the  23d  of  May,  1803,  at  Rock  Creek,  Pa.,  the  Presbytery 

of  Philadelphia  was  organized.      The  ministers  in  connection 

w^thitwere:     Robert  Annan,  Alexstnder  Dobbin  and  Eben- 

'ezer  Dicicej-.     Its  territor}'  Avas  eastward  of  the  Cumberland 

Valley. 

The  Presbytery  of  Saratoga  was  organized  at  Broadalbin, 
Xew  York,  on  the  11th  of  October,  1808.  The  following  min- 
isters, viz  :  James  Mairs,  William  McAuley,  John  Burns  and 
Robert  Proudfoot,  were  in  connection  with  it.  The  territory 
assigned  it  Avas  nortli  of  Orange  county  and  Avest  of  the  Hud- 
son River. 

The  Presbytery  of  Ohio  was  organized  at  Xenia,  Ohio,  on 
the  0th  of  April,  1817,  from  tl>e  Presbytery  of  Kentucky.  The 
actual  division,  however,  did  not  take  place  until  the  1st  of 
January,  1818.  The  ministers  assigned  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Ohio  Avere  William  Baldridge,  Alexander  Porter,  David  Risk,. 
Samuel  Carothers,  John  McFarland  and  Abraham  Craig.  All 
the  southAvestern  part  of  the  State  of  Ohio  Avas  included  Avithin 
the  territorial  limits  of  this  presbyter3'. 

In  the  course  of  time,  the  territorial  limits  of  nearly  all  the 
presbyteries  Avere  changed.  One — Londonderry — ceased  to 
have  any  connection  Avith  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  and 
the  names  of  several  Avere  changed,  and  a  feAV  Avere  divided. 
For  a  period  of  tAventy  years  no  change  Avas  made  in  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod.  The  number  of  congregations  rapidly 
increased,  neAV  presbyteries  Avere  organized,  and  the  field  occu- 
\)ied  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  became  very  extensive, 
embracing  the  territory  included  by  nearly  all  the  original 
thirteen  States  formino-  the  American  Government. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  189 

On  the  22d  of  October,  1802,  it  ^vas  determined  to  organize 
from  the  original  S3'nod  four  coordinate  Synods.  On  the  30th 
of  October,  1802,  the  original  Associate  Reformed  Synod  was 
dissolved.  Before  its  dissolution,  however,  the  necessary  ar- 
rangements were  made  for  organizing  four  Synods,  to  be  known 
respectively  as  the  Synod  of  Isew  York,  the  Sj'nod  of  Penn- 
sylvania, the  Sj'Dod  of  the  Carolinas  and  the  Synod  of  Scioto. 
The  Synod  of  ]^ew  York  was  organized  at  Newburgh,  J^,  Y., 
on  the  2Ttli  of  May,  1803.  It  Avas  composed  of  the  Presbj'te- 
ries  of  Xew  York  and  Washington. 

The  Presbyteries  of  Philadelphia  and  Big  Spring,  were,  at 
Marsh  Creek,  Pa.,  on  the  25th  of  May,  1803,  organized  into  a 
«ynod  called  the  Sj^nod  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  was  organized  at  Little  River, 
now  Ebenezer,  Fairfield  county,  S.  C,  on  the  9th  of  May,  1803. 
The  presbyteries  subordinate  to  this  sj-nod  were  the  First  and 
Second  Presbyteries  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia.  On  the  2d 
of  May,  1804,  at  Chillicotlie,  Ohio,  the  Synod  of  Scioto  was  or- 
ganized. It  was  composed  of  the  Presbyteries  of  Monongahela 
{originally  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania)  and  Ken- 
tucky. 

These  four  synods  were  subordinate  to  a  general  synod  to  be 
■constituted  by  representatives  chosen  from  the  presbj^teries,  as 
follows  : 

"  Every  presbytery  containing  not  more  than  two  minister.?,  shall  be  entitled 
to  send  one  minister  and  one  elder;  and  for  every  three  ministers  above  that 
number,  one  minister  and  one  elder  more.  This  proportion  shall  be  preserved 
till  the  number  of  delegates  exceed  thirty;  after  which  each  x^resbytery  consist- 
ing of  more  than  ten  ministers,  shall,  for  every  four  additional  ministers,  be  en- 
titled to  send  one  minister  and  one  elder."' 

On  Wednesday,  the  30th  of  May,  1804,  twenty-two  repre- 
sentatives from  the  eight  presbyteries  composing  the  four 
Synods,  met  at  Greencastle,  Pa.  The  Rev.  John  M.  Mason,  in 
the  absence  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Annan,  took  the  chair,  and 
after  preaching  a  sermon  from  the  text :  "  Hold  fast  the  faith- 
ful word,"  &c.,  Titus,  1:  9,  constituted  by  prayer,  The  Gene- 
ral Synod  of  the  Associate  ReforaIed  Church  in  jSTorth 
America.  The  court,  when  organized,  consisted  of  the  follow- 
ino;  members : 


i;i()  lusTouY  or  the 

Synod  of  New  York,  Freshytery  of  Washington. — George 
Mairs,  Alexander  Prouclfoot  and  Robert  Proudfoot,  ministers  ; 
and  Ebenezer  Clark,  John  Magoffin  and  John  Rowan,  ruling 
elders.     John  Rowan  was  absent. 

Presbytery  of  New  York. — John  M.  Mason  and  John  Mc- 
Jimsey,  ministers.  Two  ruling  elders — George  Lindsay  and 
and  John  Shaw — were  chosen  to  represent  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  but  neither  attended. 

Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  Presbytery  of  Fhiladeljjhia. — Alex- 
ander Dobbin  and  Ebenezer  Dickey,  ministers;  Donald  Cat- 
nach  and  John  Morrow,  ruling  elders. 

Presbytery  of  Pig  Spring. — Thomas  Smith  and  James  Mc- 
Connell,  ministers;  John  Gabby  and  James  McLenaghan, 
ruling  elders. 

Synod  of  Scioto,  Presbytery  of  Kentucky. — Adam  Rankin, 
minister ;  and  Thomas  Meek,  ruling  elder. 

Presbytery  of  Monongahela. — John  Rlddell  (absent)  and  David 
Proudfoot,  ministers ;  John  Patterson  and  James  Findlay, 
ruling  elders. 

Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  First  Presbytery. — ^John  Hemphill, 
minister.     No  ruling  elder  was  appointed. 

Second  Presbytery. — James  McGill,  minister.  No  ruling  elder 
was  appointed. 

The  Rev.  Alexander  Dobbin  was  chosen  Moderator  and  the 
Rev.  James  Gray,  Clerk.  Previous  to  the  organization  of  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  the  num- 
ber of  vacancies  had  greatly  increased,  and  their  petitions  for- 
the  ordinances  of  God's  house,  although  earnest,  could  not  be 
answered  by  the  Synod.  There  was  a  great  demand  for  preach- 
ing, and  only  a  few  preachers  to  perform  the  work.  In  the 
years  preceding  the  organization  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  the  Associate  Presbyter}^  as  well  as  the  Reformed 
Presbytery,  depended  upon  the  judicatories  in  Europe  for  their- 
supply  of  ministers.  The  course  pursued  by  both  these  gave, 
at  the  time,  "[reat  oft'ense  to  the  judicatories  in  Scotland  and 
Ireland,  and  partiall}'  barred  even  friendly  intercourse  between, 
them  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  IDi; 

All  the  oltl  ministers  of  both  the  Covenanter  and  Associate- 
Presbyteries,  in  America,  were  men  of  superior  intellectual 
endowments,  finished  classical  scholars,  and  thoroughly  trained 
theologians.  Of  this  statement  there  are  many  incontrovertible 
proofs. 

Having  been  well  educated  themselves,  these  old  fathers  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church  were  able  to  appreciate  the  ad- 
vantages of  an  education,  and  were  unwilling  to  admit  any  one 
to  preach  the  gospel  whom  they  did  not  consider  qualified  to 
instruct  those  among  whom,  in  the  providence  of  God,  thev 
might  be  called  to  labor. 

For  the  first  fifteen  years  after  its  organization,  most  of  the 
candidates  in  the  ministry  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
received  both  their  literary  and  theological  training  in  Dickinson. 
College,  Carlisle,  Pa.  This  college  was  founded  in  1783.  Its 
first  president  was  the  Rev.  Dr.  Charles  Nisbet,  a  native  of 
Scotland.  At  the  request  of  a  number  of  young  men,  gradu- 
ates of  the  college,  who  had  the  gospel  ministry  in  view.  Dr.. 
Xisbet  delivered  a  course  of  lectures  on  Si/stemafic  Theology/. 
The  candidates  for  the  ministrj'  in  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  usually,  while  in  college,  attended  these  lectures.  ISTo 
doubt,  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyteries  entrusted  the- 
training  of  their  theological  students  to  Dr.  Xisbet  because  ot" 
the  fact  that  he  was  known  to  be,  both  in  Scotland  and  Amer- 
ica, a  member  of  the  Orthodox  party. 

Some,  perhaps  all,  or  nearly  all  the  ministers  licensed  by  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church,  during  the  first  eighteen  years, 
studied  privately.  Each  pastor  was  a  theological  professor,, 
and  his  humble  dwelling  a  theological  seminary.  Alexander 
Dobbin,  John  Mason,  Matthew  Linn,  John  Smith  and.  Robert 
Annan,  rendered  the  church  an  important  service  in  trair.ing 
youno;  men  for  the  ministrv. 

In  such  a  system  of  theological  training,  there  was,  no  doubt,, 
something  defective,  but  not  so  great  as  is,,  perhaps,  generally 
supposed.  The  system  which  reduces  theory  promptly  to  prac- 
tice, is  not  very  defective.  The  most  objectionable  feature  con- 
nected with  the  mode  of  theological  training  in  existence  dur- 
ing the  early  period  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  was 
that  it  imposed  upon  pastors  a  very  onerous  burden.  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  when  one  denomination,  of  Christians  entrusts  the 


192  HISTORY    OF    THE 

training  of  its  theological  stndents,  either  in  part  or  in  whole, 
to  members  of  another  denomination,  it  places  its  own  dis- 
tinctive doctrines  and  practices  in  eminent  peril,  and  opens 
wide  the  door  that  defections  from  doctrine  and  laxity  iii  prac- 
tice may  pour  in  like  a  iiood. 

To  remedy  all  defects,  remove  all  objections  and  prevent -flU 
■evils  connected  with  the  existing  mode  of  training  candidates 
for  the  ministr}',  and  at  the  same  time  increase  the  number  of 
able  ministers,  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  as  early  as 
1796,  began  to  direct  its  attention  to  the  founding  of  a  theo- 
logical seminary.  It  was  not,  however,  until  1801  that  the 
matter  assumed  a  tangible  form.  The  subject  had,  on  several 
■occasions,  been  before  the  8ynod,  but  the  impoverished  and  de- 
, moralized  condition  of  the  countrj-,  on  account  of  the  war, 
had,  up  to  this  time,  retarded  all  visible  progress.  The  matter 
was  put  into  the  hands  of  a  committee.  The  report  of  that 
committee  was  taken  up  by  the  Synod  on  the  2d  of  June,  1801. 
"We  cannot  better  express  the  mind  of  the  Synod  on  this  sub- 
ject than  by  quoting  its  own  minute,  which  is  as  follows : 

"  Took  up  the  report  of  the  committee  for  devising  a  phm  of  sujiiily  to  the 
vacancies  ;  and.  after  tlie  most  serious  deliberations,  came  to  the  following  con- 
clusion : 

1.  That  a  minister  of  this  Church  be  sent  to  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  or 
either  of  them,  to  procure  a  competent  number  of  evangelical  ministers  and 
probationers,  and  that  his  expenses  be  defrayed  from  the  Synodical  fund. 

2.  That  he  be  authorized  to  secure  a  number  of  pious  and  intelligent  students 
of  divinity,  who  shall  engage  to  repair,  after  the  completion  of  their  studies,  to 
the  United  States,  and  place  themselves  under  the  direction  of  this  Synod. 

3.  That  he  be  further  authorized  and  enjoined  to  solicit  donations  in  money, 
for  the  purpose  of  erecting  and  maintaining  a  theological  seminary  for  the  edu- 
cation of  youth  for  the  holy  ministry. 

4.  That,  according  as  the  moneys  in  his  hand  shall  permit,  he  be  also  author- 
ized to  pui'chase  a  library  for  said  seminary  ;  and  collection  of  those  books 
which  are  most  needful  and  useful  for  this  Synod,  to  be  distributed  among  their 
ministers  and  students,  as  shall  hereafter  be  directed  ;  using  the  advice  and 
counsel  of  judicious  and  godly  ministers  with  regard  to  the  selection  ;  and  that 
he  solicit  donations  in  books  for  both  these  uses.'' 

The  Rev.  John  M.  Mason  was  the  person  selected  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  imposed  Ijy  the  above  resolutions.  For  such  . 
a  mission  he  was  eminentlj'  well  qualified..  In  less  than  two 
months  after  his  appointment  he  set  sail  for  Europe,  and  on 
the  2d  of  September  landed  at  Greenock.  He  was  absent  about 
fifteen  months,  during  which  time  he  collected  about  live  thou- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  193 

* 

sand  dollars.  Nearly  all  this  amount  he  expended  in  the  pur- 
chase of  books  for  the  use  of  the  contemplated  seminar}'.  lEc 
was  also  successful  in  prevailing  n})0n  five  ministers  and  one 
probationer  to  come  to  the  assistance  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Svnod.  A  few  days  after  the  return  of  Mr.  Mason  (October, 
1802),  the  Synod  convened  in  the  city  of  Xew  York.  Mr. 
Mason  met  with  it,  and  gave  in  a  detailed  account  of  his  agency. 
The  concluding  sentence  of  his  report  is  as  follows : 

'■  The  business  of  the  mission  having  been  brought  to  a  close,  toward  the  end 
of  August,  I  lost  no  time  in  preparing  for  mj^  return,  and  on  the  1st  of  Septem- 
ber sailed  from  Greenock,  in  company  with  the  Rev.  Messrs.  James  Scrimgeour, 
Alexander  Calderhead,  Robert  Forest,  Robert  Easton,  James  Lawrie,  ministers; 
and  Robert  Hamilton  Bishop,  probationer ;  who,  having  had  a  prosperous  voyage, 
by  the  will  of  God,  are  now  present  to  tender  their  services  to  the  churches." 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Synod,  in  1804,  the  Rev. 
Jolin  M.  Mason  was  chosen  professor  of  divinit}-,  and  the  city 
of  ^ew  York  fixed  upon  as  the  proper  place  for  the  seminary. 

This  was  the  second  theological  seminary  established  in 
America.  Andover,  Massachusetts,  was  established  in  1808, 
and  Princeton,  Xew  Jersey-,  in  1812.  Twelve  yearn  previous, 
however,  to  the  founding  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Theologi- 
cal Seminarj^,  the  Associate  Presbyteiy — those  who  did  not 
coalesce  with  the  Covenanters — established  a  theological  sem- 
inary in  Beaver  county,  Pa.  This  was  the  first  theological 
seminary  established  in  America.  The  Rev.  John  Anderson — 
afterward  Dr.  John  Anderson — was  its  first  professor.  For  a 
period  of  twenty-seven  years,  or  from  1792  to  1819,  he  con- 
tinued, single  and  alone,  to  discharge  acceptably  and  profitably 
the  onerous  duties  of  his  responsible  ofiice. 

For  several  years  peace  and  harmony  reigned  in  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  seemed  to  be 
receiving  a  constant  outpouring  of  the  Spirit.  All  was  not, 
boTvever,  peace  and  harmony.  There  were,  as  the  sequel  will 
show^,  a  number  of  occurrences  which  disturbed  the  tranquility 
of  the  moment.  In  fact,  there  was  in  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  from  the  period  of  its  organization  in  1782,  up  to  1822, 
an  apparent  want  of  stability.  For  nearly  one  half  of  this  time 
it  was  in  what  may  with  some  propriety  be  called  a  formative 
state.  It  was  not  until  the  31st  of  May,  1799,  that  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  was  adopted. 

14 


194  HISTORY    OF    THE 

At  its  first  meeting,  in  1782,  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,. 
"  after  serious  deliberation  and  solemn   prayer,"  unanimously 
adopted  the  following  articles  : 

I.  It  is  the  resolution  of  tiiis  Synod  to  persevere  in  adherinpf  to  the  system  of 
truth  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  exhibited  in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
Catechisms — Larger  and  Shorter — and  to  the  fundamental  princif)les  of  gospel 
worship  and  ecclesiastical  government  agreed  upon  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines 
at  Westminster,  with  the  assistance  of  commissioners  from  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land. This  Declaration,  however,  does  not  extend  to  the  following  sections  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  which  define  the  power  of  civil  government  in  relation 
to  religion:  Chapter  XX,  Section  4;  Chapter  XXIII,  Section  3;  Chapter  XXXI, 
Section  2.  These  Sections  are  reserved  for  a  candid  discussion  on  some  future 
occasion,  as  God  shall  be  pleased  to  direct.  Nor  is  it  to  be  construed  as  a  resig- 
nation of  our  rights  to  adjust  the  circumstances  of  public  worship  and  ecclesi- 
astical policy  to  the  station  in  which  Djvine  Prov'idence  may  place  us.  All  the 
members  of  the  Synod  acknowledge  in  the  meanwhile  that  they  are  under  the 
most  sacred  obligations  to  avoid  unnecessary  criticism  upon  any  of  these  excel- 
lent treatises,  which  would  have  a  native  tendency  to  weaken  their  attachment 
to  the  truths  therein  contained.  If  any  of  the  members  of  the  Synod  shall  con- 
ceive any  scruples  at  any  Article  or  Articles  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Cate- 
chisms. Directory  of  Worship,  or  Form  of  Presbyterian  Church  Government,  or 
shall  think  they  have  sufficient  reason  to  make  objections  thereto,  they  shall 
have  full  liberty  to  communicate  their  scruples  or  objections  to  their  brethren, 
who  shall  consider  them  with  impartiality,  meekness  and  patience,  and  endeavor 
to  remove  them  by  calm,  dispassionate  reasoning.  No  kind  of  censure  shall  be 
inflicted  in  cases  of  this  nature  unless  those  scrupling  and  objecting  brethren 
shall  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church  by  publishing  their  oi^inions  to  the  people, 
or  by  urging  them  in  judicatories  with  irritating  and  schismatic  zeal. 

II.  The  ministers  and  elders  in  Synod  assembled  also  declare  their  hearty 
ajiprobation  cf  the  earnest  contendings  for  the  faith  and  magnanimous  suffer- 
ings in  its  defense,  by  which  our  pious  ancestors  were  enabled  to  distinguish 
themselves  in  the  last  two  centuries;  that  they  have  an  affectionate  remem- 
brance of  the  National  Covenant  of  Scotland,  and  of  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  of  Scotland.  England  and  Ireland,  as  well-intended  engagements  to 
support  the  cause  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  hold  themselves  bound  by 
divine  authority  to  practice  all  the  moral  duties  therein  contained  according  to 
their  circumstances.  That  j)ublic  and  explicit  covenanting  with  God  is  a  moral 
duty  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  to  which  they  are  resolved  to  attend,  as  He 
shall  be  pleased  to  direct.  That  it  is  their  real  intention  to  carry  with  them  all 
the  judicial  testimonies  against  defections  from  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,  which  have  been  emitted  in  the  present  age  by  their  brethren  in  Scot- 
land as  far  as  these  testimonies  serve  to  display  the  truth,  and  comport  with  the 
circumstances  of  our  church,  and  that  they  will  avail  themselves  of  every  call  to 
bear  appointed  testimony  against  the  errors  and  delusions  which  prevail  in  this 
country. 

III.  The  members  of  Synod  also  acknowledge  with  gratitude  that  they  are 
bound  to  honor  the  religious  denominations  in  Britain  to  which  they  belonged,. 
on  account  of  their  zeal  for  the  purity  of  the  gospel  and  of  those  laudable  efforts 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  195 

to  promote  it,  not  only  in  Britain  and  Ireland,  but  also  in  America,  and  they 
profess  an  unfeigned  desire  to  hold  an  amicable  correspondence  with  all  or  any 
of  them,  and  to  concur  with  them  in  every  just  and  eligible  measure  for  pro- 
moting true  and  undefiled  religion. 

IV.  It  is  also  the  resolution  of  this  Synod  never  to  introduce,  nor  suffer  to  be 
introduced  in  their  church,  the  local  controversy  about  the  civil  establishment, 
of  Presbyterian  religion,  and  the  religious  clause  of  some  Burgess  oaths  in  Scot- 
land, or  any  iinnecessary  disputes  about  the  origin  of  civil  dominion,  and  requi- 
sites for  rendering  it  legal  in  circumstances  dissimilar  to  those  in  which  them- 
selves are  placed.  They  esteem  th'emselves  bound  to  detach  their  religious  pro- 
fession from  all  foreign  connections,  and  to  honor  the  civil  powers  of  America, 
conscientiously  submitting  to  them  in  all  their  lawful  operations. 

V.  That  the  abuse  of  ecclesiastical  censures  may  be  effectually  prevented, 
the  following  General  Rule  of  Discipline  is  unanimously  adopted,  namely  :  That 
notorious  violations  of  the  law  of  God,  and  such  errors  m  doctrine  as  un- 
hinge the  Christian  profession,  shall  be  the  only  scandals  for  which  deposition 
and  excommunication  shall  be  passed,  and  that  the  highest  censures  of  other 
offenders  shall  be  a  dissolution  of  the  connection  between  the  Synod  and  the 
offender. 

YI.  The  terms  of  admission  to  fixed  communion  with  the  Synod  shall  be 
soundness  of  faith  as  defined  in  the  aliove-mentioned  Confession  and  Cate- 
chisms, submission  to  the  Government  and  discipline  of  the  Church  and  a  lioly 
conversation. 

VII.  The  members  of  Synod  also  acknowledge  it  to  be  their  duty  to  treat 
pious  persons  of  other  denominations  with  great  affection  and  tenderness.  They 
are  willing,  as  God  affordeth  opportunity,  to  extend  communion  to  all  who  in 
every  place  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  conformity  to  His  will.  But 
as  occasional  communion  in  a  divided  state  of  the  church  maj'  produce  great 
disorders,  if  it  be  not  conducted  with  much  wisdom  and  moderation,  they  es- 
teem themselves  and  the  people  under  their  inspection  inviolably  bound,  in  all 
ordinary  cases,  to  submit  to  every  restriction  of  their  liberty,  which  general  ed- 
ification renders  necessary.  This  article,  however,  is  not  to  be  construed  as  a 
license  to  encourage  vagrant  preachers  who  go  about  under  pretence  of  extra- 
ordinary zeal  and  devotion,  and  are  not  subject  to  the  government  and  discipline 
of  any  regular  church. 

VIII.  As  the  principles  of  the  Synod  are  detached  from  the  local  peculiari- 
ties by  which  the  most  considerable  parts  of  Presbyterians  have  been  distin- 
guished, it  is  further  agreed  to  reject  all  such  applications  for  admissions  to 
fixed  communion  with  the  Synod  that  may  at  any  time  be  made  by  persons  be- 
longing to  other  denominations  of  Presbyterians,  as  evidently  arise  from  ca- 
price, personal  prejudice,  or  any  other  schismatical  principles,  and  that  the  only 
admissable  application  shall  be  such  as  shall,  upon  deliberate  examination,  be 
found  to  arise  from  a  solid  conviction  of  duty,  and  to  discover  Christian  meek- 
ness towards  the  party  whose  communion  is  relinquished,  or  such  as  are  made 
by  considerable  bodies  of  people  who  are  not  only  destitute  of  a  fixed  gospel 
ministry,  but  cannot  be  reasonably  provided  for  by  the  denomination  of  Pres- 
byterians to  which  they  belong.  It  is,  however,  thought  proper  that  applications 
of  the  last  kind  shall  not  be  admitted  till  the  bodies  by  whom  they  are  admitted 


196  HISTORY    OF    THE 

shall  previously  inform  the  judicatories  which  have  the  immediate  inspection  of 
them  of  the  reasons  of  their  intended  application,  and  shall  use  all  due  means 
to  obtain  the  concurrence  of  that  judicatory. 

The  above  articles  were  afterwards  revised,  and  in  some  par- 
ticulars slightly  amended,  and  in  connection  with  the  Basis  of 
Union,  published  under  the  title:  The  "  Constitution  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Eelormed  Cliurch."  They  were  known  as  '•  The  Little 
Constitution." 

"Whoever  will  read  the  articles  which  made  the  "  Little  Con- 
stitution," in  connection  with  the  Basis  of  Union,  will  discover 
that  the  founders  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  endeav- 
ored to  avoid  some  of  the  grave  errors  into  which  both  Asso- 
ciates and  Covenanters, both  in  America  and  Europe,  had  fallen. 
The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  with  all  its  excellencies, 
was  regarded  by  them  as  defective.  This  is  manifest  from  the 
fact  that  one  Section  in  each  of  three  chapters  was  not  adopted, 
but  "  reserved  for  a  candid  discussion  on  some  future  occasion." 

This  reservation  excited  a  feeling  akin  to  suspicion  in  the 
minds  of  some.  To  question,  some  thought,  one  principle  laid 
down  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  was  to  ignore 
the  whole.  This  was  a  gratuitous  assumption — a  conclusion 
reached  without  a  knowledge  of  the  facts. 

The  parts  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  not 
adopted  by  the  Synod  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  all 
referred  to  the  powers  of  the  civil  magistrate.  The  Church  of 
Scotland,  the  mother  of  all  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the 
world,  was  a  National  Church,  and  in  some  of  its  features  anti- 
Presbyterian.  This  is  not  to  be  thought  strange.  The  wonder 
is  that  so  great  attainments  were  made  by  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, and  that  she  retained  so  little  of  papal  corruptions.  In 
the  First  Book  of  Discipline,  prepared  in  1560,  by  the  justly 
celebrated  John  Knox,  there  is  something  that  savors  of  Eras- 
tianism  in  almost  every  paragraph.  It  is  decidedly  anti-papal 
and  anti-prelatic,  but  it  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  Presbyterian. 
It  resembles  more  the  code  of  a  tyrant  than  a  system  of  laws 
and  regulations  by  which  freemen  in  Christ  Jesus  are  to  be 
governed.  It  certainly  was  adapted  to  the  time  at  which  it 
was  formulated,  but  is  totally  unfit  for  a  people  far  advanced  in 
scriptural  knowledge. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  197 

The  Second  Book  of  Discipline,  adopted  in  1581,  was  in  ad- 
vance, in  some  particulars,  of  the  first ;  in  others  it  was  not. 
In  neither  was  the  church  and  state  kept  separate  and  distinct. 
Most  evidently  was  there  an  effort,  strong  and  praiseworthy, 
in  that  direction;  but  it  was  the  effort  of  men  just  emerging 
from  the  darkness  of  popery  and  living  under  a  monarchial 
government.  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  is  far  in 
advance  of  any  similar  production  which  preceded  it.  The 
Scotch  Commissioners,^  Henderson  and  Gillespie,  may,  with 
some  modification,  be  said  to  be  its  authors.  It  is  a  monument 
of  wisdom  and  piety,  and  in  the  main  is  without  an  objection, 
because  it  is  strictly  scriptural.  Still,  the  AVestminster  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  is  defective.  So  thought  the  fathers  of  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church,  and  so  think  all  their  descendants. 

These  defects  are  confined  excilusively  to  those  Sections  which 
treat,  either  directly'  or  indirectly,  of  the  powers  and  preroga- 
tives of  the  civil  magistrate.  In  Chapter  XX.  of  the  "West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  the  subject  treated  of  is  "Chris- 
tian liberty  and  liberty  of  conscience."  The  objectionable,  fea- 
ture in  the  fourth  Section  of  this  chapter  is  that  it  declares  that 
those  who  "resist  the  ordinance  of  God  may  be  lawfully  called 
to  an  account  and  proceeded  against  both  by  the  church  and 
by  the  c-ivil  magistrate" 

In  Section  third  of  Chapter  XXIII.  it  is  made  the  duty  of 
the  civil  magistrate  "to  take  order  that  unity  and  peace  be 
preserved  in  the  church ;  that  the  truth  of  God  be  kept  pure 
and  entire ;  that  all  blasphemies  and  heresies  be  suppressed ; 
all  corruptions  and  abuses  in  worship  or  discipline  prevented 
or  reformed ;  and  all  the  ordinances  of  God  duh'  settled,  ad- 
ministered and  observed,  to  thebetter  effecting  whereof,  he  hath 
power  to  call  synods,  to  be  present  at  them,  and  to  provide  that 
whatsoever  is  transacted  in  them  be  according  to  the  mind  of 
God."  Section  second  of  Chapter  XXXI.  recognizes  the  right 
of  civil  magistrates  to  convene  synods  and  councils,  but  re- 
serves the  right  to  ministers  to  do  this  when  the  civil  magis- 
trate is  an  open  enemy  of  the  church.  These  three  Sections  of 
the  Westminister  Confession  of  Faith  were  not  adopted  by  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church,  because  they  are  clearly  anti-Pres- 
byterian. They  were  considered,  not  hastily,  but  c'almly  and 
dispassionately,  for  a  period  of  more  than  sixteen  years,  and 


198  HISTORY    OF    THE 

amended,  and  finally,  on  theSlst  of  May,  1799,  adopted  as  they 
now  stand  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Ohnrch.  The  only  other  change  which  was  made  was 
the  substituting  of  the  word  authorizing %v  "tolerating"  in  the 
catalogue  of  sins  contained  in  the  answer  to  the  139th  ques- 
tion of  the  Larger  Catechism.  This  last  change,  however,  is 
not  always  oljserved. 

Whoever  will  carefully  compare  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church  with  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  will  be  convinced  that  the  fathers  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  acted  wisely  in  making  the  reservation 
they  did  make,  and  that  in  amending  the  Sections  referred  to, 
they  showed  that  they  had  clear  and  distinct  ideas  of  pure 
Presbyterianisra,  and  that  they  freed  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  from  Erastianism,  and  severed  the  church  from 
the  state  in  its  government  and  discipline. 

It  will  also  be  observed  that  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
avoided  the  issuing  of  Testimonies.  This  was  common  in  both 
branches  of  the  church  from  which  she  was  descended.  Both 
Associates  and  Covenanters  had  covenant  bonds  and  judicial 
testimonies  which  they  regarded  as  of  equal  importance  with 
the  Confession  of  Faith  itself,  and  sometimes  apparently  of 
more  importance.  These  Covenant  bonds  and  Judicial  Testi- 
monies were  made  tests  of  Christian  character,  and  an  assent 
to  them  made  a  term  of  communion.  The  Associate  Reformed 
Church  began  its  existence  without  any  of  these.  Those  who 
did  not  correctly  understand  her  position  charged  her  with 
"burying  the  Covenants." 

There  was  a  demand  on  the  part  of  some  of  her  own  people 
for  a  testimony.  This  the  Synod  studiously  avoided.  An  "Il- 
lustration and  Defense  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,"  prepared  by  order  of  Synod,  in  1785,  was  printed  in 
1787,  but  was  not  judicially  adopted,  but  simply  recommended 
as  "  an  excellent  and  instructive  illustration  and  application  of 
those  truths  unto  the  present  state  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in 
America." 

The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  this  "  Illustration  and 
Defense"  consisted  of  Robert  Annan,  John  Smith  and  John 
Mason.  It  is  mainly  the  production  of  Robert  Annan.  The 
design  contemplated  in  preparing  this  "  Overture,"  as   it  has 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  199 

■always  been  called,  seems  to  have  been  two-fold :  one  was  to 
luish  the  clamor  for  a  Testimony ;  and  the  other,  and  no  doubt 
the  main  design,  was  to  ascertain  the  mind  of  the  Synod  in 
reference  to  the  "  excepted  "  Sections  of  the  AVestminster  Con- 
fession of  Faitji.  In  other  words,  it  was  designed  to  be  a 
movement  in  the  direction  of  formulating  and  rendering  per- 
manent the  subordinate  Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church. 

While  this  overture  was  under  consideration,  in  1789,  the 
Eev.  Matthew  Henderson  handed  in  the  following  paper, 
signed  by  himself,  John  Smith  and  William  Logan: 

Will  the  Synod  approve  the  judicial  Act  and  Testimony  of  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  Scotland,  and  their  Act  concerning  the  doctrine  of  Grace  ?  Will  the 
Synod  adopt  the  Declaration  made  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  respecting  civil 
dominion  and  the  qualifications  necessary  to  the  being  of  a  magistrate  ?  Do 
the  Synod  think  that  the  renovation  of  the  Covenant  in  the  Secession  is  a  reno- 
vation of  the  National  Covenant  and  Solemn  League  'i  Do  the  Synod  profess 
themselves  to  be  under  the  formal  obligation  of  these  covenants,  considered  as 
ecclesiastical  deeds?  Will  the  Synod  give  up  the  scheme  of  occasional  com- 
munion in  all  ordinary  cases,  and  confine  the  privilege  to  the  members  of  our 
own  church? 

An  effort  was  made  in  an  extra-judicial  conference  to  satisfy 
the  minds  of  these  brethren.  Having  failed,  Mr.  Henderson 
withdrew  from  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  and  returned 
to  the  Associate  Presbytery.  In  the  autumn  of  1795  John 
Smith  followed  his  example. 

It  is  evident  that  during  the  formative  period  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  there  was  some  diversity  of  opinion  on 
•several  points.  Mr.  Henderson  left  her  communion  because  she 
would  not  approve  and  adopt  all  that  the  Associate  Presbytery 
^of  Scotland  had  approved  and  adopted,  and  give  up  the  scheme  of 
■occasional  communion.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Henderson  there 
can  be  little  if  any  doubt  that  he  acted  from  anything  but  pure 
motives.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Smith  it  is  probable  that  he  left 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church  parth- ,  at  least,  because  he  did 
not  obtain  the  pastorate  of  the  congregation  in  Xew  York,  left 
vacant  by  the  death,  in  1792,  of  Dr.  John  Mason. 

It  is  clear  that  some,  at  least,  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
fathers  were,  at  first,  partially  in  favor  of  adopting  a  Judicial 
Testimony.  This  was  traceable  to  the  bias  of  early  education 
and  the  influence  of  the  past  history  of  the  Associate  and  Gov- 


200  HISTORY    OF    THE 

enanter  Churches.  A  moment's  reflection,  it  would  seenir 
would  have  satisfled  any  one  who  was  not  blinded  by  preju- 
dices that  tlie  matter  of  preparing  a  Judicial  Testimony  was 
attended  with  insuperable  difliculties.  The  longer  this  matter 
was  considered,  and  the  more  it  was  discussed,  the  greater  be- 
came the  embarrassment. 

It  seems  strange  at  this  day  that  any  one  would  ever,  in 
America,  after  the  surrender  of  Cornwallis  at  Yorktown,  have 
insisted  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant. 
That  instrument  will  stand  as  one  of  the  grandest  monuments 
of  the  past.  It  marks  an  epo^h  in  the  history  of  the  church 
which  will  never  be  forgotten ;  but  it  is  strikingly  national  in 
its  character,  and  the  peculiar  circumstances  which  made  its 
approval  at  one  time  well  nigh  a  matter  of  necessity  have  long 
ago  passed  away. 

To  place  themselves  in  a  proper  light  before  the  world,  the 
Synod  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  in  1797,  adopted 
the  following  paper: 

Whereas,  A  number  of  people,  under  the  inspection  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod,  entertain  doubts  as  to  their  principles  and  intentions  with  re- 
spect to  the  maintenance  of  a  faithful  testimony  for  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus; 
and  whereas,  these  doubts  are  accompanied  with  anxiety  for  a  judicial  publica- 
tion, copiously  illustrating  and  defending  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel;  and  enu- 
merating, refuting  and  condemning  errors  and  heresies,  to  be  called  a  Testi- 
mony, the  ministers  and  elders  in  Synod  assembled  think  it  incumbent  on  them 
to  explain,  and  by  this  Act  they  do  explain  their  real  views  of  these  interesting 
subjects. 

Upright  and  open  testimony  for  the  truths  of  the  Lord's  word,  whether  relat- 
ing to  doctrine,  worship  or  manners,  is  the  indispensable  duty  of  all  Christians, 
especially  of  the  ministers  and  judicatories  of  the  church,  who,  from  their  office, 
ought  to  be  set  for  the  defense  of  the  gospel. 

Judicial  testimonies  being  designed  to  operate  against  error,  are,  lest  they 
should  miss  their  aim.  to  be  wisely  adapted  to  the  immediate  circumstances  of 
the  church. 

Both  these  principles  have  been  fully  recognized  by  the  Synod,  in  their  pub- 
lished Act  of  May,  1790.  entitled  An  Act  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod.  They  therein  declare  that  "they  consider  the  Confession 
of  Faith.  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  Directory  for  Worship,  and  Form  of 
Church  Government,  as  therein  received,  as  their  Fixed  Testimony,  by  which 
their  principles  are  to  be  tried;  or,  as  the  judicial  expression  of  the  sense  in 
which  they  understand  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  relation  they  have  to  the 
doctrine,  the  worship  and  government  of  the  Christian  church,  and  that  it  is 
their  resolution  to  emit  occasional  testimonies,  in  particidar  acts,  against  errors 
and  delusions.     The  Synod,  however,  being  frequently  importuned  to  publish  a. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY,  201 

testimony  of  a  different  kind,  renewed  from  time  to  time,  their  discussions  on 
tliis  point,  and  after  the  most  impartial  and  serious  deliberation,  find  it  not 
their  duty  to  recede  from  the  above  resolution." 

For  the  satisfaction  of  those  who  have  not  had  the  means  to 
ascertain  the  grounds  of  this  decision,  some  of  them  are  sub- 
joined: 

1.  In  her  excellent  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms.  &c.,  the  church  is  already 
possessed  of  a  testimony  so  scriptural,  concise,  comprehensive  and  perspicuous, 
that  the  Synod  despair  of  seeing  it  materially  improved,  and  are  convinced  that 
the  most  eligible  and  useful  method  of  maintaining  the  truths  therein  exhibited, 
is  occasionally  to  elucidate  them  and  direct  them  in  particular  acts  against  par- 
ticular errors,  as  circumstances  require. 

2.  There  was  drawn  up  and  published  by  a  committee  of  Synod,  in  the  year 
1181,  An  Overture  for  illustrating  and  defending  the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith.  And  in  May,  1790,  Synod  unanimously  resolved  that  said 
overture  is,  "  in  substance  an  excellent  and  instructive  illustration  and  ajiplica- 
tion  of  these  truths  unto  the  present  state  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  America," 
and  warmly  recommended  it  as  such  to  all  the  people  under  their  inspection. 
"VThatever  there  might  be  effected  on  a  general  scale,  by  any  similar  pamphlet, 
in  the  form  of  a  Judicial  Testimony,  may  be  effected  by  that  overture.  And  to 
emit  such  a  testimony  would  only  be  to  repeat  the  same  laborious  and  expen- 
sive work,  without  obtaining  any  proportional  advantage. 

3.  Could  a  Testimony  universally  acceptable  be  prepared,  it  would  still  be  far 
from  producing  those  beneficial  effects  which  are  so  fondly  expected: 

a.  If  it  were  to  do  tolerable  justice  to  the  prodigious  extent  of  the  Confession, 
it  would  swell  into  an  immense  work,  of  which  the  very  bulk  would  defeat  the 
intention.  And  if  it  were  comprised  in  a  volume  suited  to  the  leisure  of  an  or- 
dinary reader,  it  would  be  defective,  and  defective,  perhaps,  on  those  very  points 
on  which  the  occurrences  of  a  few  months  might  require  it  to  be  particular  and 
full. 

b.  It  could  scarcely  give  a  correcter  view  of  the  principles  of  the  Synod  than  is 
already  given  in  their  received  Confession,  because  it  could  scarcely  hold  forth  any 
truths  which  are  not  therein  held  forth,  or  state  them,  upon  the  whole,  with  more 
luminous  precision.  The  opinion  that  such  a  testimony  is  needful  to  ascertain 
the  Synod's  principles  is  a  direct  impeachment  of  the  Confession  itself;  since, 
if  they  are  not  sufficiently  ascertained  by  this,  it  must  be  either  lame  or  ambig- 
uous; and  then  the  church  demands  not  a  separate  testimony,  but  an  amended 
Confession.  If  any  parts  of  it  are  differently  interpreted  and  abused  to  the  pro- 
motion of  error,  these  ought  to  be  explained  in  detached  acts,  and  such  explana- 
tion belongs  strictly  to  the  province  of  occasional  testimonies. 

c.  It  could  not  deter  from  application  for  ministerial  or  Christian  communion 
with  the  Synod  any  who  are  not  really  friendly  to  the  doctrines  of  grace,  since 
one  who  can  profess  an  attachment  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  while  he  is  secret- 
ly hostile  to  its  truths,  is  too  far  advanced  in  dishonesty  to  be  impeded,  for  a 
moment,  by  any  testimony  which  the  wisdom  of  man  can  frame. 

d.  It  could  not  silence  the  objections  and  cavils  of  such  as  incline  to  mis- 
represent the  principles  and  character  of  the  Synod,  since  it  is  impossible  to 
satisfv.  with  anything,  those  who  are  determined  to  be  satisfied  with  nothing. 


202  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  very  uncandid  manner  in  which  the  Synod  have  already  been  often  treated, 
both  in  Britain  and  America,  leaves  little  reason  to  hope  their  plainest  declara- 
tions will  not  be  perverted,  and  their  most  upright  intentions  misconstrued. 

e.  It  could  not  lift  up  a  ijerpetual  banner  for  truth,  since  from  the  ever-fluc- 
tuating state  of  religious  controversy,  and  the  impossibility  of  foreseeing  the 
different  shapes  which  error  may  assume,  some  parts  of  it  would  gradually  grow 
obsolete,  while  some  would  be  deficient ;  and  the  same  necessity  for  occasional 
testimonies  would  still  remain.  In  the  nature  of  things,  moreover,  it  would,  after 
a  short  time,  at  most  a  few  years,  be  out  of  print  and  out  of  date,  and  ceasing 
to  interest  the  public  curiosity,  would  utterly  fail  of  accomplishing  its  end. 
There  is  also  solid  i-eason  to  fear  that  in  the  present  unhappy  contentions  which 
divide  the  church,  it  would  be  used  by  too  many  as  the  rallying  point  of  party, 
and  would  inflame  those  wounds  in  the  body  of  Christ  which  it  shouUl  be  our 
study  and  prayer  to  have  speedily  and  thoroughly  healed. 

While  these  and  similar  reasons  impel  the  Synod  to  decline  issuing  such  a 
Testimony  as  hath  been  desired,  there  are  others  which  persuade  them  that  the 
plan  on  which,  as  the  Lord  in  His  providence  hath  called  them,  they  have  hitherto 
acted,  and  on  which  they  are  resolved  to  act  in  future — the  plan  of  emitting 
occasional  testimonies— include^i  all  the  excellencies  of  that  which  they  reject; 
is  free  from  its  embarrassments,  and  is  calculated  to  produce  real  and  perma- 
nent good. 

As  witnesses  of  the  Most  High,  Christians  are  especially  bound  to  avow  and 
defend  those  truths  which  are  more  immediately  decried,  and  to  oppose  those 
errors  which  immediately  prevail.  This  is  termed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  being 
established  in  the  present  trtdh.  It  is  the  very  essence  of  a  judicious  testimony  ; 
nor  is  there  any  way  in  which-  judicatories  can  so  well  maintain  it  as  in  serious 
and  scriptural  occasional  acts. 

Of  this  method  of  testifying  there  are  plain  and  numerous  traces  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  in  the  pious  practice  of  the  primitive  church.  Such  testimonies 
have,  moreover,  special  advantages  ;  they  are  brief — so  that  a  reader  of  ordinary 
diligence  can,  in  a  very  little  time,  make  himself  perfectly  master  of  their  con- 
tents. 

They  are  pointed  ;  and  by  singling  out  the  error  which  is  doing  prese>if  mis- 
chief, they  give  more  effectual  warning  of  present  danger  than  could  possibly 
be  done  if  they  were  interspersed  through  a  large  and  general  publication. 

They  are  new  ;  and  for  this  very  reason  they  arrest  the  attention  of  men  more 
than  if  they  were  diffused  through  an  older  and  more  extended  work,  however 
excellent. 

They  may  also  throw  fresh  light  upon  received  truths,  and  make  a  deeper  im- 
pression on  the  mind  than  if  met  with  in  the  course  of  ordinary  reading. 

They  furnish  special  topics  for  religious  conversation  ;  and  by  fixing  the 
thoughts  of  pious  people  on  a  particular  subject,  render  them  greatly  instru 
mental  in  edifying  each  other. 

As  they  confine  the  attention  of  judicatories  within  a  small  compass,  there  is 
a  better  prospect  of  their  being  executed  with  ability  and  success. 

They  serve  to  cement  the  affections  of  judicatories  and  their  people,  as  they 
oblige  the  former  to  watch,  with  peculiar  zeal,  over  the  interest  of  the  latter, 
and  afford  the  latter  continual  and  enduring  proofs  of  the  faithfulness  of  the 
former. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  203 

They  are  frequent,  and  thus  have  a  happy  tendency  to  keep  alive  the  spirit  of 
honest  testimony  for  Jesus  Christ,  which  would  slumber  much  deeper  and  much 
longer,  were  that  duty  supposed  to  be  discharged  in  a  solitary  volume. 

They  will  form,  coUectirehj,  a  more  complete  and  useful  vindication  of  truth 
than  could  be  expected  if  the  different  branches  of  it  were  all  to  be  discussed  in 
a  continued  work. 

They  will  show  posterity  what  were  the  truths  which,  in  a  peculiar  manner, 
their  fathers  were  honored  to  maintain. 

In  1798,  the  Synod  resolved  to  change  the  text  of  the  AVest- 
minster  Confession  in  the  "excepted"  sections,  and  thus  free 
it  from  even  the  semblance  of  Erastianism.  These  changes 
having  been  made,  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  adopted  at 
Greencastle,  Pa.,  on  the  31st  of  May,  1799.  From  that  time 
down  to  the  present,  that  Confession  of  Faith,  without  any 
alteration  or  any  testimonies,  has  continued  to  be  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South. 

To  sa}^  that  it  is  absolutely  free  from  all  defects,  would  be  to 
claim  for  it  what  can  be  claimed  for  nothing  merely  human. 
It  contains,  however,  a  clear,  precise  and  manh^  statement  of 
the  doctrines  of  free  grace,  and  so  much  resembles  the  Bible  in 
its  phraseolog}-,  that  it  may,  with  the  strictest  regard  to  truth, 
be  said  to  be  founded  on  and  deduced  from  the  Word  of  God. 
It  was  born,  however,  in  a  storm ;  but  it  has  outlived  the  tem- 
pest. Until  it  was  formulated,  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod 
Avas  in  a  kind  of  unsettled  state.  Its  adoption  brought  com- 
parative peace ;  at  least  it  brought  greater  stability  to  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church.  If  it  did  not  increase  its  friends,  it 
<3ertainly  drew  clearly  the  line  of  distinction  between  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  and  the  other  Scotch  Presbyterian 
denominations.  By  both  Covenanters  and  Associates,  Burgh- 
•ers  and  Anti-Burghers,  both  in  America  and  Scotland,  the  fra- 
mers  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  were  severely  censured.  So  great  was  the  opposition 
to  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  that  only  a  few  of  the  Se- 
cession emigrants  from  Scotland  or  Ireland  to  America — and 
these  few  all  Burghers — joined  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 
These  were  prejudiced  against  her,  and  without  examining  into 
the  matter,  came  to  the  wild  conclusion  that  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  was  full  of  heterodox  doctrines  and  laxities  in. 
discipline. 

Time,  however,  has  reversed  that  hasty  conclusion  and  vin- 
dicated the  wisdom  of  the  Associate  Reformed  fathers. 


204  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  XII. 

DISTURBANCES  Growing  ( )ut  of  the  Unsettled  State  of  the  Church— The  First 
Insubordinate  Act — Londonderry  Presbytery — David  Annan  Admits  Samuel 
Taggart  and  Then  Ordains  William  Morrison — The  Syiiod  Pronounced  the 
Act  Irregular,  But  the  Ordination  Valid — '"  The  Presbytery  of  the  Eastward  " 
Coalesces  With  the  Londonderry  Presbytery — The  Members  of  this  New  Or- 
ganization Rarely  Attend  Synod — Soon  Began  to  Show  Signs  of  Laxity — Con- 
gregational iu  Their  Notions — A  Committee  Appointed  to  Visit  the  Ri-esby  tery 
— Wrote  a  Letter — Nature  of  the  Presbytery's  Irregularities — Mr.  Morrison's 
Reply  to  the  Letter  of  the  Committee — Its  Fallacies — Declared  Insubordinate 
by  the  Synod — Associate  Reformed  Presbyterianism  Ceased  to  Exist  in  New 
England — Revived  in  1846  by  Dr.  Blaikie — The  Reformed  Dissenting  Pres- 
bytery— Its  Origin  and  History — United  With  the  Associate  Church  iji  1851 — 
Difficulty  in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York — Fast  Days  and  Thanksgiving 
Days — Dr.  John  M.  Mason's  Course — The  Difficulty  Arranged,  but  Not  Satis, 
factorily  to  All — Feequent  Communion — Custom  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land— Dr.  John  M.  Mason's  Letters — Dr.  Mason's  Ability — Social  Position — 
Made  a  Mistake — Men  Obey  Custom  Rather  Than  Law — Dr.  Mason  Excited 
Suspicion — John  Smith  Soured — Mason  and  Proudfoot — Dr.  Mason  An  In- 
novator and  Censurable. 

Disturbances  growing  in  part,  perhaps,  out  of  the  unsettled 
state  of  things  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  from  the  pe- 
riod of  her  organization,  in  1782,  and  the  adoption  of  her  con- 
stitution, in  1799,  and  partlj'  arising  from  other  causes,  made 
the  judicatories  of  the  church  often  both  unpleasant  and  un- 
profitable. We  must  not  forget  that  purity  is  first ;  then  fol- 
lows peace  as  the  shadow  follows  the  substance. 

The  first  event  wdiich  occurred  to  give  the  Associated  Re- 
formed Church  much  trouble,  was  the  insubordinate  course  pur- 
sued bj'  the  Presbj'teiy  of  Londondeny.  This  Presbyterj-,  or- 
ganized, as  we  have  seen,  in  178G,  formed  originally  a  part  of  the 
Third  Presbytery.  Tlie  congregations  in  the Xew  England  States 
were  taken  from  the  Third  Presb^'tery  and  erected  into  the 
Pres1)ytery  of  Londonderry,  which  was,  in  1791,  changed  to 
the  Presbytery  of  New  England.  Some  of  the  members  of  this 
Presbytery  began,  at  a  very  early  period,  to  manifest  a  disre- 
gard for  law  and  order.  Previous  to  the  erection  of  the  Lon- 
donderry Presbytery,  the  Third  Presbytery  appointed  a  meeting 
at  Londonderry,  on  the  13th  of  February,  1783.     This  was  but 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  205 

a  few  months  after  the  organization  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod.  The  meeting  was  called  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining 
William  Morrison  and  installing  him  as  pastor  of  the  Second,  or 
"VYest  Parish  of  Londonderrj'.  The  onlj^  members  of  the  Pres- 
bytery present  were  the  Rev.  David  Annan  and  an  elder  from 
his  charge.  In  the  Presbytery  there  were  four  ordained  minis- 
ters, viz.:  John  Mason,  Robert  Annan,  David  Annan  and 
Thomas  Clarke.  It  was  manifest  that  the  ordination  and  in- 
stallation of  Mr.  Morrison  could  not  be  proceeded  with,  for 
the  want  of  a  quorum.  It  so  happened,  however,  that  the 
Rev.  SqjBuel  Taggart,  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  congregation 
of  Coleraine,  Franklin  county,  ]Mass,,  was  present,  with  the 
avowed  design  of  joining  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyter}^. 
Mr.  Annan,  aware,  no  doubt,  that  he  and  the  elder  from  his 
charge  did  not  constitute  the  Presbyterj^  was  unwilling  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  ordination  and  installation.  To  meet  the  emer- 
gency of  the  case,  he  first  admitted  Mr.  Samuel  Taggart  as  a 
member  of  the  Presbytery,  and  then  he  and  Mr.  Taggart  con- 
stituted the  Presbytery  and  proceeded  to  ordain  and  install  Mr. 
Morrison.  At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Synod  the  facts  were 
reported.  The  Synod,  by  an  Act,  sustained  the  validity  of 
Mr.  Morrison's  ordination,  but  condemned  the  proceedings  as 
irregular. 

In  1793,  "The  Presbytery  of  the  Eastward,"  an  independent 
presbytery,  composed  of  some  Irish  congregations  in  "New  Eng- 
land, which  had  not  as  yet  united  with  any  ecclesiastical  bod}', 
and  the  Presbyter}^  of  ]S"ew  England,  coalesced.  This  was  with-' 
out  the  authority,  or  ever  the  knowledge  of  the  Synod. 

Conscious  of  having  acted  in  this  whole  matter  in  an  irreg- 
ular and  unconstitutional  manner,  the  members  of  this  new  or- 
ganization kept  themselves  aloof  from  the  Sj'nod.  The  name 
of  their  presbytery  they  changed  and  resumed  the  original 
name  of  Londonderry. 

They  soon  began  to  exliibit  more  marked  signs  of  departure 
from  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  church,  in  the  mode  and 
matter  of  worship,  and  in  discipline  and  form  of  government. 
They  had  imbibed  the  Congregational  notions  of  flieir  Xew 
England  neighbors,  and  in  the  face  of  the  laAV  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  introduced  into  the  sanctuary  of  God  the 
practices  of  the  Americanized  Puritans.     AVith  the  hope  of  re- 


206  HISTORY    OF    THE 

claiming  this  erratic  Presbytery,  the  Synod  appointed  two  of  its- 
members  a  committee  to  visit  them.  The  Rev.  John  JNI.  Mason 
was  chairman  of  this  committee. 

The  committee  was  providentially  hindered  from  visiting  in 
person  the  Presbyter}- ;  bnt  Mr.  Mason,  in  the  name  and  b}^ 
the  authority  of  the  committee,  wrote  to  them  an  expostulatory 
letter  condemning  their  irregularities  and  vindicating  the  action 
of  the  Synod.  The  irregularities  of  which  the  Presbytery  of 
Londonderry  was  guilty  were  the  introducing  into  the  worship 
of  God  Watts'  Psalms  and  Hymns;  permitting  non-profess- 
ors to  vote  in  church  matters,  and  neglecting  to  attend  the 
meetings  of  the  Synod.  To  the  letter  of  Mr.  Mason,  the  Pres- 
bytery, through  Mr.  Morrison,  replied  as  follows: 

The  distance  of  place,  with  other  circumstances  relative  to  me  and  my  breth- 
ren in  New  England,  render  personal  interview  with  our  Southern  brethren 
very  inconvenient.  Our  presbytery  have  increased  from  the  small  number  of 
three  or  four  to  ten  settled  ministers,  viz  :  Messrs.  Moore.  Ewers.  Annan.  Tag- 
gart,  Oliver,  Dana,  Tomb,  Brewer,  Pidgeon.  and  myself.  This  Presbytery  con- 
sider themselves  (with  divine  aid)  competent  to  all  the  purposes  of  judicial  au- 
thority in  the  churches  or  societies  under  their  care  ;  and  best  acquainted  with 
their  customs,  tempers  and  manners  :  and  their  situation  with  respect  to  other 
denominations.  They  have  considered  the  Act  of  Synod  respecting  psalmody 
as  injurious  to  the  cause  of  Presbytery  in  New  England  :  and  have  voted  to  re- 
ply accordingly  to  the  letter  of  Synod  on  the  subject.  Should  the  committee 
yet  come  and  warmly  insist  upon  the  observance  of  the  late  Synodical  Acts  re- 
specting psalmody  and  terms  of  communion,  I  will  not  say  that  they  may  grat 
ify  a  few ;  but  they  will,  I  think,  give  a  mortal  wound  to  the  influence  of  the 
Synod  in  this  part  of  the  continent.  Common  observation  and  experience  con- 
cur with  revelation  in  teaching  us  the  necessity  of  governing  people  in  a  man- 
gier best  adapted  to  their  circumstances  for  their  good  and  for  the  honor  of  •  re- 
ligion 

The  above,  although  not  all  of  the  communication  of  Mr. 
Morrison,  in  behalf  of  the  Presbyteiy  of  Londonderry,  is  all 
that  it  contains  in  reply  to  the  letter  of  Mr.  Mason,  and  in  vin- 
dication of  the  irregular  course  which  tlie  Presbytery  was  pur- 
suing. It  is  frank  and  candid,  but  withal  tinged  with  sophis- 
try and  manifests  an  insubordinate  spirit. 

Distance  of  place  is  stated  as  the  cause  of  continued  absence 
from  the  meetings  of  Synod.  This  was  true  only  in  [lart.  The 
prime  reason  was  the  consciousness  of  having  trampled  under 
foot  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  church.  The  claim  that 
people  should  be  ecclesiastically  governed  according  to  their 
peculiar  circumstances  is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  there 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  20*? 

is  no  form  of  church  government  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures.. 
This,  according  to  Presbyterians,  which  tliey  professed  to  be, 
is  false.  The  declaration  that  "  the}'  considered  themselves 
competent  to  all  the  purposes  of  judicial  authority  in  the 
churches  or  societies  under  their  care"  is  not  to  be  explained 
in  accordance  with  any  known  principle  of  Presbyterianism. 

In  this  insubordinate  state  the  Presbytery  of  Londonderry 
continued  to  have  a  nominal  connection  with  the  Associate  Ke- 
formed  Synod  until  1801,  when  the  Synod  declared  itself  no 
longer  responsible  for  any  of  its  acts.  In  1809,  the  Presbytery 
of  Londonderry,  after  an  existence  of  mongrel  independency 
for  about  eight  years,  was  received  into  the  Presbyterian  Synod 
of  Albany. 

From  18 Gl  to  1846  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterianism 
ceased  to  have  an  organic  existence  in  New  England.  At  the 
latter  period  an  Associate  Reformed  congregation  was  organ- 
ized in  the  city  of  Boston,  Mass.,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander 
Blaikie. 

Another  instance  of  at  least  apparent  insubordination  was 
the  organization  of  The  .Reformed  Dissenting  Presbytery^  by  the 
Revs.  Alexander  J^fcCoy  and  Robert  Warwick.  This  case,, 
however,  was  veiy  diiferent  from  that  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Londonderry.  The  latter  had  no  regard  for  the  principles  and 
practices  of  the  Reformers,  but  was  bent  on  making  every  thing 
in  religion  conform  to  the  manners  and  customs  of  -the  present 
hour.  The  former  had,  it  may  be  safely  said,  more  respect  for 
the  deliverances  of  the  fathers  than  they  had  for  principles, 
brought  to  light  by  the  providences  of  God  in  his  dealings  with 
the  children  of  men. 

AVhen  the  AVestminster  Confession  of  Faith  w\as  modified 
"  concerning  the  powders  of  the  civil  magistrate  in  matters  of 
religion,"  and  adopted  as  the  "  Constitution  and  Standards''  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  Mr.  McCoy  protested.  lie,  it 
seems,  was  opposed  to  any  changes  being  made  in  the  original 
Confession  of  Faith.  Being  unable  to  prevent  the  modification 
of  the  Sections  reserved  at  the  time  of  the  union  for  "  future 
consideration,"  he,  on  the  27th  of  June,  1799,  declined  the  au- 
thority of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  For  the  same  rea- 
son, the  Rev.  Robert  Warwick,  on  the  11th  of  Xovember,  1800, 
did  the  same  thinsr.     On  the  27th  of  January,  1801,  these  two 


208  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ministers  and  rnling  elders  John  Pattison,  Samuel  Mitchell  and 
Zaccheus  Wilson,  met  at  the  house  of  John  Scott,  in  Washing- 
ton county,  Pa.,  and  constituted  themselves  into  a  presbytery 
to  which  they  gave  the  name,  Reformed  Dissenting  Presby- 
tery. 

This  presbytery  continued  to  exist  as  a  separate  organization 
for  a  period  of  about  fifty  years,  or  from  the  27th  of  January, 
1801,  to  the  summer  of  1851,  when  it  united  with  the  Associate 
Synod. 

During  the  fifty  years  of  its  existence  thirteen  ministers  la- 
bored to  proi)agate  that  particular  phase  of  Secederism  which 
was  embodied  in  the  Testimony  of  the  Reformed  Dissenting 
Presbytery,  organized  hy  Revs.  McCoy  and  W^arwick.  Their 
success  was  not  at  any  time  very  encouraging.  They  labored 
under  great  disadvantages.  Xo  doubt  that  Fathers  McCoy  and 
Warwick  were  honest  in  declaring  that  to  change  the  "West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith  was  an  act  of  "unfaithfulness  to 
reformation  principles  ;"  l)ut  the  followers  of  these  worthy  men 
found  it  no  easy  matter  to  propagate  their  opinions  concerning 
the  powers  of  the  civil  magistrate.  The  Secession  Church  ef- 
fected a  grand  revolution  in  Christendom  concerning  the  pow- 
ers of  the  civil  magistrate  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  church. 
The  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Dissenting  Presbytery  entertained 
the  same  opinion  respecting  the  powers  of  the  civil  magistrate 
circa  sacra  wdiich  were  entertained  by  the  Church  of  Scotland 
previous  to  the  Secession.  The  doctrine  that  the  church  is 
"the  free  and  independent  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,"  and 
that  the  civil  magistrate  has  no  authority  to  interfere  in  its 
government  is  traceable  to  the  Bible,  but  it  was  first  practically 
evolved  by  Dissenters  from  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

It  is  liiglil}^  probable  that  the  brethren,  McCoy  and  War- 
wick, were  treated  harshly.  Little  allowance  was  made  for 
the  bias  of  early  education,  and  they  were  expected  to  see  at  a 
glance  what  they  and  their  fathers  had  never  been  taught  had 
an  existence,  viz. :  a  state  separate  from  the  church,  or  a  church 
independent  of  the  state. 

ISTear  the  same  time  that  the  trouble  began  with  the  Presb}'- 
terj'  of  Londonderry,  a  difficulty  of  a  somewhat  different  char- 
acter sprang  up  in  the  Presbyter}-  of  New  York. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  209 

111  the  Chiircli  of  Scotland,  and  in  all  tlie  Dissenting  branches 
-of  that  churcli,  it  had,  for  a  period  far  beyond  the  memoiy  of 
xiuy  one  living,  been  customary  to  observe  a  day  of  fasting  pre- 
vious to  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  a  day  of 
thanks-giving  afterward.  The  session  of  the  congregation  in 
the  city  of  Xew  York  resolved  to  discontinue  this  custom. 
This  gave  offense  to  some  of  the  congregation.  It  was  no  easy 
matter  for  these  conscientious  people  to  give  up  a  time-honored 
custom.  They  could  not  see  hoAv  it  was  possible  for  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  be  properly  dispensed  without 
previousl}''  observing  a  fast-day.  The  Rev.  John  M.  Mason 
was  pastor  of  the  congregation  by  whose  session  these  supposed 
innovations  were  introduced.  The  matter  being  brought  be- 
fore the  Presbyteiy  of  l^ew  York,  occasioned  considerable  dis- 
•cussion.  Finally  it  was,  after  various  motions  had  been  offered, 
"  agreed  to  recommend  mutual  forbearance  and  affection,  and 
leave  the  different  sessions  to  act  in  this  matter  as  they  con- 
ceive the  will  of  the  Lord  to  be  revealed  in  his  word,  and  ex- 
plained by  the  Act  and  Directory  of  Sj^nod."  This  was  not 
satisfactoiy  to  the  party  complaining.  A^ery  few  persons  have 
a  clear  and  distinct  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  the  word  forbear. 
With  mau}^,  if  not  with  the  majority,  it  means:  "You  must 
think  as  I  think  and  do  as  I  do,  or  you  will  do  wrong,  and  I 
will  have  nothing  to  do  with  you."  There  certainly  is  no  war- 
rant in  the  Scriptures  for  observing  either  fast-days  or  thanks- 
giving-days in  connection  wnth  the  Lord's  Supper ;  neither  is 
there  anj^  Scripture  forbidding  the  observance  of  such  days. 
Such  being  the  case,  the  observance  of  such  days  should  be  left 
to  the  wisdom  and  discretion  of  Sessions.  Mr.  James  Mairs 
took,  conscientiousl}^,  no  doubt,  a  different  view  of  this  mat- 
ter, and  having  protested  against  the  action  of  the  presbj'tery, 
appealed  to  the  S^'nod.  AVhen  the  matter  came  before  the 
Synod,  Messrs.  Mairs  and  Mason,  the  offender  and  the  offended, 
were  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  a  report  on  the  subject. 
A  report  was  presented  and  unanimously  adopted  ;  but  it  is 
doubtful  whether  it  gave  satisfaction  to  the  people  generally. 
We  may  safely  say  that  while  the  report  is  founded  on  the 
plainest  Scriptural  principles,  it  was  violently  opposed  by  a 
very  respectable  minority,  both  of  the  ministers  and  lay  mem- 
bers in  connection  with  the  denomination. 

15 


210  insTOUY  OF  the: 

Shortl}^  after  this,  the  Eev.  John  M.  Mason  began  the  prac^ 
tice  of  FREQUENT  cOxMMUNiox.  The  custom  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  after  which  both  the  Reformed  Presb^'terian  and  As- 
sociate Churches  were  modified,  was  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper  not  oftener  than  twice  during  the- 
3'ear  and  frequently  onl}"  once.  In  the  Church  of  Scotland 
there  was  no  law  on  the  subject.  Custom  had  established  a 
law  a})parently  in  opposition  to  the  "  Directory  for  Public 
Worship,'"'  adopted  in  1645.  In  that  Directory  it  is  stated,, 
under  the  proper  head,  that  '•  the  Comiuunion  or  Supper  of  the' 
Lord  is  frequently  to  be  celebrated  ;"  but  h(nv  often  is  left  to 
be  determined  by  the  pastor  or  other  church  officers  in  each 
congregation.  The  frequent  administration  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per and  the  dispensing  with  the  observance  of  fast  and  thanks- 
giving-days in  connection  with  its  administration,  found  in 
John  M.  Mason  a  zealous  and  able  advocate.  In  order  to 
propagate  his  opinion  on  this  subject,  he  published,  during 
the  year  1798,  a  series  of  able  letters,  which  were  addressed  to 
the  members  of  the  Associate  Peformed  Church.  These  letters 
gave  offense  to  many,  especially  to  the  older  members  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church,  and  caused  them  to  regard  their 
author  with  a  degree  of  suspicion.  lie  was  charged  as  an  in- 
novator. If,  however,  he  had  waited  quietly  for  a  few  years, 
the  probability  is  that  he  would  have  outlived  all  tliis  suspi- 
cion. The  observance  of  fast-daj'S  in  connection  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Lord's  Supper  is,  at  present,  left  optional 
with  the  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  and 
each  congregation  is  permitted  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper 
as  often  each  year  as  the  office-bearers  in  the  congregation  may 
deem  proper  or  necessary  for  edification.  There  is  really  no  law 
on  either  of  these  subjects.  Unfortunately  for  Mr.  Mason,  he  was 
in  advance  of  his  age  in  this  matter,  and  consequently,  as  must 
ever  be  the  case  with  such  men,  he  encountered  strong  opposi- 
tion. Intellectually,  America  has  produced  but  few  men  who 
have  equaled  John  M.  Mason.  As  a  pulpit  orator  he  was  first 
among  the  first.  Nature  did  a  great  deal  for  him,  and  he  en- 
joyed rare  advantages  for  the  cultivation  of  the  gifts  with 
which  a  kind  Providence  had  endowed  him.  His  own  denom- 
ination was  proud  of  him,  and  all  others  regarded  him  as  a 
prince.     In  the  city  of  l!^ew  York  he  was  brought  in  constant 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  211 

contact  with  those  who  occupied  the  highest  position  in  soci- 
ety. The  learned  and  honored  were  his  companions.  Judges, 
professors  in  colleges,  and  embassadors  from  European  govern- 
ments sat  entranced  while  he  conversed.  He  was  conscious  of 
his  powers,  and  no  doubt,  in  the  honesty  of  his  heart,  desired 
to  refine  and  Americanize  the  church  of  his  fathers. 

He  made  a"  mistake.  There  is  something  which  we  may  call 
metaphysically  slow  in  the  Scotch  mind.  John  M.  Mason 
could  have  led  the  whole  of  the  French  nation:  but  he  could 
not  lead  the  whole  of  the  Associate  Eeformed  Church,  small 
as  it  was  in  his  day.  Be  moved  too  fust.  He  did  not  give  the 
the  masses  of  the  denomination  time  to  think. 

There  is  a  disposition  in  most  men  to  violate  legal  enact- 
ments ;  but  all  men  cling  to  that  law  which  custom  has  estab- 
lished. It  is  hard  for  any  man  to  understand  how  it  is  possi- 
ble for  a  custom  which  has  prevailed  for  centuries  not  to  be 
binding  upon  the  consciences  of  all.  .John  M.  Mason  Vv^as  an 
innovator.  Kot  that  he  introduced  practices  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God,  but  practices  contrary  to  the  time-honored 
usages  of  the  church  to  which  he  belono-ed.  The  custom  of 
observing  a  day  of  fasting  before  administering  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  a  day  of  thanks-giving  afterward, 
had,  for  good  and  solid  reasons,  been  introduced  into  the 
Church  of  Scotland  and  adopted  by  all  the  Secession  branches- 
of  that  church.  The  custom  prevailed  in  some  congregations- 
until  ver}^  recently,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  see  any  evil  conse- 
quences which  would  result  from  such  observances  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  In  fact,  every  truly  Godly  man  or  woman  will  com- 
mend such  a  custom  as  eminently  calculated  to  increase  the 
growth  oF  grace  in  Christians.  Still,  there  is  no  law  in  the 
word  of  God  for  such  observances,  and  consequently  it  is 
wrong  to  say  that  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  cannot 
be  properly  received  without  observing  a  fast-day  before  its 
administration,  and  a  day  of  thanksgiving  afterward.  It  is 
probable  that  the  controversies  about  fast-days  and  frequent 
communion,  together  with  some  other  things  which  scarcely 
ever  saw  the  li^ht,  weakened  the  confidence  of  at  least  a  re- 
spectable minority  of  the  Associate  Eeformed  ministers  and 
people  in  the  Kev.  John  M.  Mason.  The  Rev.  John  Smith 
left  tlie  Associate  Reformed  Church  mainlv  because  Mr.  Ma- 


212  HISTORY    OF    THE 

son,  then  only  a  boy,  was  called  to  be  pastor  of  tbe  clmrcb 
made  vacant  by  the  death  of  his  father.  This  position  Mr. 
Smith  was  very  anxious  to  secure,  but  failing — a  boy  being 
preferred  before  him — he  became  soured,  and  his  friends  be- 
came cold  toward  Mr.  Mason. 

When  the  theological  seminary  was  established,  "  some  of 
the  leading  and  most  judicious  members  of  the  church  in  ISTew 
York  were  anxious  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander  Proudfoot  be 
associated  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  M.  Mason.  This  certainlj'- 
would  have  been  wise ;  but  on  account  of  a  scheme  of  Dr.  Ma- 
son's, which  was  never  realized,  it  was  not  done."  The  result 
was  a  partial  suspension  of  tlie  friendship  winch  once  existed 
between  the  two.  Mr,  Proudfoot  never  manifested  that  inter- 
est in  the  seminary  Avhich  was  expected.  It  is  true,  that  in  the 
course  of  time  the  past  Avas  forgotten  and  wrongs  forgiven. 
The  Rev.  John  M.  Mason's  talents  placed  him  prominently  be- 
fore the  public ;  but  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  he  ever 
had  the  entire  confidence  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
after  the  controversy  about  fast-days  and  frequent  communion. 

In  one  sense  he  was  not  to  be  censured,  and  in  another  he 
certainl}'  was.  Tie  was  not  to  be  censured  because  he  did  not 
regard  the  observance  of  these  days  binding.  IsTeither  was  he 
to  be  censured  because  he  thought  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  ought  to  be  administered  oftener  than  was  the  custom 
in  his  day,  because  the  Scriptures  do  not  specify  how  often  it 
is  to  be  administered.  He  was,  however,  to  be  censured  be- 
cause he  seems  to  have  had  no  regard  for  the  opinions  and  prac- 
tices of  the  pious  fathers.  That  man  is  to  be  sharply  censured 
who  ruthlessly  tears  down  what  the  pious  of  past  generations 
have  built  up.  He  must  make  for  himself,  if  not  open  enemies, 
secret  despisers ;  weaken  his  influence  for  good,  and  do  the 
cause  of  truth  injury  to  the  extent  of  his  ability.  He  who  has 
no  regard  for  the  past  has  very  little  respect  for  the  present. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  213 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

ASSOCIATE  REFORMED  CHURCH  Began  to  Grow  and  Decline  at  the  Same 
Time — Ministers  Lose  Confidence  in  Each  Other — Causes  which  Led  to  the 
Final  Dissolution  of  the  General  Synod — The  Psalmody  Question — Its  His- 
tory in  Connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States — 
Watts'  Imitations  First  Allowed;  then  Watts'  Hymns — Finally,  both  Watts 
and  Rouse  Practically  Laid  Aside — History  of  Rouse's  Version  of  the  Psalms 
— The  Scotch  .Version — The  Metre  of  Rouse's  Version — Rouse's  Version 
Amended  and  Adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland — 
History  of  Uninspired  Hymns — Paraphrases  Allowed  by  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land— Their  Character — Practice  of  the  Covenanters — Practice  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  Prior  to  1753 — The  Result  of  Introducing  Watts'  Version — 
The  History  of  Watts'  Version — His  Design  as  Stated  by  Himself — His  Pre- 
face to  his  Imitations — Remarkable  Production — His  Hymns — Offensive  to 
Many  — Those  who  had  been  Persecuted  by  Kings  of  England  could  not  Sing 
them — Rouse's  Version — What  is  Claimed  for  it — Its  Poetic  Excellence — The 
Doctrine  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  concerning  Psalmody — Not  a 
Version,  but  the  Psalms — Psalmody  Practically  Divides  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  and  all  Hymn-singing  Churches — A  Tendency  in  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  to  Follow  the  Multitude — Marshall's  Sermon  on 
Psalmody — The  Associate  Reformed  Church  took  higher  grountl  on  Psalm- 
ody than  that  occupied  by  the  Church  of  Scotland — Section  in  Confession  of 
Faith  on  "  Singing  of  Psalms " — The  Section  Quoted — Trouble  about  the 
Change  Proposed  in  Paragraph  2  of  Section  III. 

Of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  it  may  be  said,  however 
contradictory  it  may  appear,  that  it  began  to  grow  and  decline 
at  the  same  time.  In  less  tlian  twenty  years  after  its  organi- 
zation, its  ministers  began  to  lose  confidence  in  each  other. 
This  became  distinctly  visible  after  the  year  1810.  This  unde- 
sirable state  of  things  was  brought  about  by  a  series  of  events, 
some  trivial  in  themselves  and  others  of  great  im[)ortance. 
These  will  now  be  stated  as  nearly  in  the  order  of  time  as  the 
existing  circumstances  will  permit. 

The  Psalmody  C[uestion  began  to  disturb  the  church  in 
America  at  a  very  early  period.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
began  to  be  harassed  by  it  prior  to  the  arrival  of  Gellatly  and 
Arnot.  In  1753  this  question  was  propounded  to  the  Synod 
of  Xew  York,  viz :  "  Whether  a  church  session  hath  power  to 
introduce  a  new  version  of  psalms   into  the  congregation  to 


214  HISTORY    OF    THE 

which  they  belong,  without  the  consent  of  the  majority  of  said 
<!ono-reo-ation."  To  this  the  Synod  voted  a  unanimous  nega- 
tive. Previous  to  tliis,  some  of  the  congregations  under  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  Synod  of  Xcw  York  had  intro- 
duced into  the  worship  of  God  Watts'  version  of  the  psalms. 
This  was  not  done  by  the  consent  of  all  the  members  of  these 
•congregations,  nor  even  of  the  majority.  It  seems  that  it  was 
taken  for  granted  that  in  this  matter  the  rnajorit}^  had  the 
right  to  rule. 

The  question  was  before  the  higher  judicatories  of  the  Pres- 
.byterian  Church  for  a  number  of  years.  At  first  the  contest 
was  between  the  Scotch  version  of  the  psalms  and  that  by  Dr. 
Isaac  Watts.  Afterward  the  propriety  or  admissibility  of 
using  Watts'  hymns  was  introduced,  and  finally,  both  the 
Scotch  version  and  Watts'  version  were  practically  laid  aside 
and  uninspired  hymns,  collected  from  all  quarters,  substituted 
in  their  place.  Such  is,  practically,  the  state  of  the  question  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  at  present. 

As  the  psalmody  question  had  very  much  to  do  in  disturbing 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  it  is 
proper  to  trace  the  histor}-  of  that  trouble. 

In  the  Church  of  Scotland,  from  which  sprang  both  the  As- 
sociate and  Reformed  Presbyterian  churches,  the  version  of 
psalms  used  in  the  worship  of  God,  both  publicly  and  privately, 
was  what  is  generally  but  incorrectl}'  called  "  Rouse's  version." 
This  was  preceded  in  England  and  Scotland  by  the  version  of 
Sternhold  and  Hopkins.  Previous  to  this  the  psalmody  of  the 
church  was,  like  everything  else,  so  grossly  corrupted,  that  it 
was  absolutely  destitute  of  both  devotion  and  sense.  Hymns 
were  gener-ally  made  for  the  present  occasion,  and  were  al- 
most always  foolish,  and  sometimes  grossly  sensual  and  wicked. 

The  history  of  what  is  properly  known  as  Rouse's  version  of 
the  psalms  is  simple  and  easy.  Immediately  previous  to  the 
convening  of  the  Westminster  divines,  the  version  of  the 
psalms  in  general  use  by  all  religious  denominations  in  Eng- 
land and  Scotland  was  the  version  of  Sternhold  and  Hopkins. 
Oomplaints  being  made  of  this  to  the  Parliament,  they  brought 
the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  Assembly,  desiring  them  to 
recommends  ome  other  version  to  be  used  in  the  churches. 
After  havino-  read   over  the  version  made  and  published  by 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  215 

Francis  Eoiise,  and  amending  it  in  several  particulars,  the  As- 
•sembl}'-  sent  the  following  to  the  House  of  Commons,  on  the 
14th  of  November,  1645  : 

Whebeas,  The  honorable  House  of  Commons,  by  an  order  bearing  date  No- 
venaber  20,  1643,  have  recommended  the  psalms  published  by  Mr.  Rouse  to  the 
consideration  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  the  Assembly  has  caused  them  to  be 
carefully  perused,  and  as  they  are  now  altered  and  amended  do  approve  them, 
and  humbly  conceive  they  may  be  useful  and  profitable  to  the  church,  if  they  be 
permitted  to  be  sung. 

On  the  reception  of  the  above  recommendation  tho  Parlia- 
ment authorized  Rouse's  version  of  the  psalms. 

On  the  28th  of  August,  1647,  the  General  Asseinbl}"  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  passed  an  Act  for  revising  the  version  of 
Rouse.  The  work  of  revision  was  distributed  as  follows,  viz. : 
The  first  forty  w^ere  assigned  to  John  Adamson ;  the  second 
forty  to  Thomas  Crawford  ;  the  third  forty  to  John  Row" ;  and 
the  remaining  thirty  to  John  [N'evey. 

These  individuals  w^ere  instructed  not  to  confi.ne  themselves 
in  this  matter  to  the  version  of  Rouse,  but  to  use  any  other 
that  they  might  find  better.  In  the  version  of  Rouse,  there 
were  some  of  the  psalms  which  were  not  adapted  to  common 
metre  tunes.  In  such  cases,  it  w^as  recommended  that  a  com- 
mon metre  version  be  furnished.  Zachary  Eoyd  was  recom- 
mended to  translate  other  Scripture  songs  into  metre.  At  the 
next  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  these  individuals  re- 
ported, and  liouse's  version,  as  amended  by  them,  was  sent  to 
the  Presbyteries  to  be  further  examined.  The  Presbyteries  re- 
ported to  the  General  Assembly  in  August,  1649.  The  As- 
sembly appointed  James  Hamilton,  John  Smith,  Hugh  Mackail, 
Robert  Traill,  George  Hutcheson  and  Robert  Lowrie,  a  com- 
mittee to  i-eport  on  the  matter  ;  but  the  Assembly  not  being 
iible  "to  overtake  the  work,'"  instructed  this  committee  to  re- 
port to  the  commission  of  the  General  Assembly  at  their  meet- 
ing in  Edinburgh,  in  IS^ovember.  The  commission  was  granted 
full  power  to  conclude  the  work  and  "  publish  and  emit  the 
same  for  public  use."  This  they  did,  as  the  act  of  the  com- 
mission of  the  Assembly  clearly  shows.  The  following  is  the 
act: 

"•  The  commission  of  the  General  Assembly  having  with  great  diligence  con- 
sidered the  iiaraphrase  of  the  psalms  in  metre  sent  from  the  Assembly  of  Di- 
vines in  England,  by  our  commissioners  whilst  they  were  there,  as  it  is  corrected 


216  HISTORY    OF    THE 

by  former  General  Assemblies,  committees  from  them,  and  now  at  last  by  the  • 
brethren  deputed  from  the  late  Assembly  for  that  purpose  ;  and  having  exam- 
ined the  same,  do  approve  the  said  paraphrase,  as  it  is  now  compiled  ;  and, 
therefore,  according  to  the  powers  given  them  by  the  said  Assembly,  do  appoint 
it  to  be  printed  and  jiublished  for  public  use  ;  hereby  authorizing  the  same  to  be 
the  only  paraphrase  of  the  psalms  of  David  to  be  sung  in  the  Kirk  of  Scotland ; 
and  discharging  the  old  paraphrase,  and  any  other  than  this  new  paraphrase,  to 
be  made  use  of  in  any  congregation  or  family  after  the  first  of  May,  1650." 

It  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  constantly  speak  of  the  amended  version 
of  Rouse  as  the  "  new  paraphrase  of  the  psalms."  The  version 
in  use  before  it  the}'  refer  to  also  as  a  "  paraphrase,"  and  some- 
times as  "our  own  paraphrase." 

The  amended  version  of  Rouse  soon  came  into  general  use 
in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  continued  to  be  used,  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  versions  for  more  than  one  hundred' 
years. 

This  was  the  case  in  all  the  bi-anehes  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land. The  Covenanters  sung  it,  and  the  Scceders  sung  it.  It 
was  sung  around  the  fireside  of  the  humble  peasant  and  in  the 
lialls  of  the  nobles.  Soldiers  sung  it  as  they  marched  into 
battle,  and  the  tendcn*  mother  sung  it  in  her  liumble  home  as 
she  soothed  her  restless  babe  to  sleep.  It  produced  a  deep  and 
lasting  impression  upon  the  whole  Scotch  people  and  made 
them,  like  itself,  ruggedlj-  grand.  In  fact,  so  great  was  the 
effect  of  this  version  of  the  psalms  of  David  upon  the  Scotch, 
that  the  very  idiom  of  the  Scotch  peasants  was  that  of  the 
Jews  in  the  days  of  Samuel. 

The  question  of  singing  uninspired  Inarms  in  praise  to  God 
had  no  existence  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  from  the  Reforma- 
tion down  to  a  very  recent  period.  The  practice  was  begun  in- 
the  days  of  papal  darkness,  was  abolished  at  the  Reformation, 
and  again  revived,  so  far  as  Presbyterians  are  concerned,  in 
America.     It  is  now  well  nigh  universal. 

It  is  true,  that  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  perhaps  in  all 
the  branches  of  that  church,  paraphrases  of  other  portions  of 
Scripture  were,  at  a  very  early  period,  authoritatively  made. 
These  paraphrases  Avere  seldom  used,  and  that  only  by  a  few 
congregations.  They  were  called  hj-mns,  but  they  were  not 
hymns  in  the  present  popular  meaning  of  that  word.  They 
were  metrical  renderings  of  passages  selected  from  both  the  Oki 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY,  21'r 

and  the  IsTew  Testament.  In  the  Secession  Church  of  Scotland 
these  paraphrases  were  authorized  as  early  as  1745  ;  but  ther& 
is  no  evidence  that  they  were  used,  at  least  to  any  considerable 
extent,  for  a  period  of  seventy-five  years.  The  Reformed  Pres- 
byterian or  Covenanter  Church  has  always,  even  down  to  the 
present  day,  adhered  absolutely  and  exclusively  to  what  is  pop- 
ularly known  as  Rouse's  version. 

In  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  Rouse's  version  of 
the  psalms  was  used  exclusiveh',  or  nearl}-  so,  in  both  the  pub- 
lic and  the  private  worship  of  God,  from  the  time  of  its  first 
organization  down  to  about  1753,  a  period  of  about  fifty  years. 
From  this  time  the  subject  was  before  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  more  than  half  a  century.  At 
first,  the  question  was  the  exchange  of  Rouse's  version  for  that 
of  Dr.  AVatts'.  This  continued  to  be  a  vexed  question  for  more 
than  forty  years.  The  change  was  at  first,  and  for  a  long  time, 
very  disagreeable  to  at  least  a  respectable  minority  of  thatchurch^ 
The  "imitation  of  TV'atts,"  as  it  is  uniformly  called,  being  in- 
troduced, the  next  question  was  on  the  introduction  of  Watts' 
hymns.  In  1802  the  General  Assembl}'  made  the  following 
deliverance : 

AVheeeas,  The  version  of  the  Psalms,  made  by  Dr.  Watts,  has  heretofore  been 
allowed  in  the  congregations  under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly,  it  is 
thought  expedient  that  the  hymns  of  Dr.  Watts  be  also  allowed. 

This  date  marks  at  least  the  oflicial  introduction  of  the 
hymns  of  Dr.  "Watts  into  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  America^ 
Previous  to  this,  they  were  used  by  single  individuals  and  sin- 
gle congregations,  but  not  with  the  official  sanction  of  the 
courts  of  the  denomination. 

The  church  was  by  no  means  a  unit  in  its  approbation  of  this 
step.  Many  individuals  were  dissatisfied.  A  few  withdrew 
from  the  denomination,  and  others,  although  they  remained  in 
it,  never  approved  of  the  measure. 

A  few  Presbyterian  congregations,  the  membership  of  which 
are  of  pure  Scotch-Irish  descent,  continued,  until  very  recently, 
to  use  exclusively  Rouse's  version  of  the  psalms.  In  the  great 
majority,  however,  of  the  congregations  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  present  day  no  one  of  the  members  ever  heard 
sung  one  of  the  psalms  in  Rouse's  version. 


218  HISTORY    OF    THE 

With  respect  to  the  version  or  "imitation,"'  as  it  is  rio-btly 
called,  of  Watts,  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  so  named  from  its 
author.  Dr.  Isaac  Watts  was  a  Dissenting  minister  of  Eng- 
land, born  in  1674,  and  died  in  17-48.  He  was  learned  and 
pious,  and  although  not  worthy  to  be  ranked  <among  the  fii'st- 
class  of  poets,  his  works  show  that  he  was  endowed  with  ver\' 
■considerable  poetic  talents.  It  has  been  asserted  most  posi- 
tively, but  how  truthfully  we  will  not  undertake  to  say,  that 
he  was,  during  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  in  sympathy  with 
-what  was  then  known  as  the  Arian  part}',  or  that  he  denied 
the  divinity  of  our  Saviour.  The  works  b}'  which  he  is  best 
known  are  his  version  of  the  Psalms  and  his  religious  hymns. 
These  were  published  about  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1718. 
The  design  which  he  had  in  view  is  best  expressed  in  his  own 
words :  "  I  come,  therefore,"  he  says  in  the  preface,  "  to  the 
third  thing  I  propose ;  and  it  is  this,  to  explain  my  own  de- 
sign, which,  in  short,  is  this,  namely :  to  accommodate  the 
Book  of  Psalms  to  Christian  worship.  And  in  order  to 
this,  it  is  necessary  to  divest  David  and  Asaph,  <fec  ,  of  everj^ 
other  character  but  that  of  a  psalmist  and  a  saint,  and  to  make 
them  always  speak  the  common  sense  of  a  Christian.'" 

Such,  in  his  own  language,  was  the  design  of  Dr.  Watts. 
Whether  he  succeeded  in  making  "David  and  Asaph  speak  the 
common  sense  of  a  Christian,"  or  not,  it  is  not  our  province  to 
say.  We  may  say  that  he  made  a  bold  eftbrt,  in  order  to  suc- 
ceed, by  changing  the  sense  of  the  Psalms  of  the  Bible.  He 
was  by  no  means  afraid  to  tamper  with  the  inspired  songs. 
Some  he  excluded  entirely  ;  from  others  he  lopped  oft"  what  he 
110  doubt  regarded  surplusages,  and  to  others  added  what  he 
conceived  the  H0I3'  Spirit  had  either  forgotten,  neglected,  or 
did  not  know.  "Attempting  the  work  with  this  view,"  he 
says,  "  I  have  entirely  omitted  some  whole  psalms  and  large 
pieces  of  many  others ;  and  have  chosen  out  of  all  of  them 
such  parts  only  as  might  easily  and  naturally  be  accommodated 
to  the  various  occasions  of  the  Christian  life." 

He  was  not  careful  to  give  the  exact  meaning  of  David ;  or, 
/to  quote  his  own  language:  "I  have  not  been  so  curious  or  ex- 
act in  striving,  everywhere,  to  express  the  ancient  sense  and 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  210 

meaning  of  David  ;  but  have  rather  expressed  myself  as  Imay 
suppose  David  would  have  done,  had  he  lived  in  the  daj's  of 
•Christianity." 

Such  is,  briefly  and  in  his  own  language,  the  design  of  Dr. 
Watts  in  prepariuga  version  of  the  psalms,  and  the  rule  which 
he  adopted  in  order  to  eft'ect  his  design. 

He  composed  his  hymns  because  "there  are,"  he  says,  "a 
greatmany  circumstances  that  attend  common  Christians,  which 
cannot  be  agreeably  expressed  by  any  paraphrase  on  the  words 
of  David."' 

It  is  the  business  of  the  theologian,  rather  than  of  the  his- 
torian, to  discuss  the  question  of  psalmody  on  its  merits ;  but 
we  may  be  permitted  to  say  that  Dr.  Watts'  preface  to  his 
psalms  and  hymns  is  a  most  wonderful  production  to  be  penned 
by  a  man  who,  we  suppose,,  believed  that  David  and  Asaph 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  unguarded-  expressions  in  Dr.  Watts'  preface  to  his 
psalms  and  hj'mns,  and  the  ruthless  manner  in  which  he  added 
to  and  took  away  from  God's  Word,  excited  the  fears  of  not  a 
few  pious  men  and  women.  They  could  have  no  confidence  in 
the  man  who  would  dare  to  say  that  he  had  made  David  and 
Asaph  "  speak  the  common  sense  of  a  Christian."  To  sj^eak 
the  language  of  David  and  Asaph,  they  thought,  was  to  speak 
the  language  of  heaven.  There  were,  besides,  many  things  in 
the  language  of  some  of  Dr.  Watts'  hymns  which  were  very 
oflensive  to  at  least  some,  and  consequcRtly  they  could  not  and 
would  not  sing  them  in  praise  of  God. 

In  his  hymn  entitled  "A  Song  in  Praise  to  God  from  Great 
Britain,"  he  says,  in  speaking  of  the  blessings  which  God  was 
bestowing  upon  Great  Britain  : 

'•  He  builds  and  guards  the  British  throne, 
And  makes  it  gracious  like  his  own; 
Makes  our  successive  princes  kind, 
And  gives  our  dangers  to  the  wind." 

Again,  he  says  in  another  hymn  : 

'■  The  crowns  of  British  princes  shine 
With  rays  above  the  rest. 
Where  laws  and  liberty  combine 
To  make  the  nation  blest." 


220  HISTORY    OF    THE 

These  stanzas,  however  smooth,  were  not  calcnlated  to- 
awaken  the  devotional  feelings  of  those  whose  ancestors  had 
experienced  the  cruelties  of  the  Stuarts. 

These  and  many  other  things  of  a  similar  character  impelled 
Scotch  Presbyterians  generally  to  oppose  the  introduction  of 
Watts',  psalms  and  hymns  into  the  worship  of  God.  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  if  it  were  so  that  Dr.  Watts,  in  his  latter  days,  as 
has  been  often  afhrmed  and  was  certainly  believed,  turned 
Arian,  this  of  itself  would  have  rendered  anything  he  would 
have  said  or  done  objectionable  to  the  members  of  the  Asso- 
ciate and  Covenanter  Churches. 

It  will  not  be  denied  that  at  first  the  question  discussed  was 
the  relative  value  of  the  two  versions  of  the  Book  of  Psalms. 
It  was  not  long,  however,  until  the  controversy  assumed  a 
different  aspect. 

Strictly  speaking.  Watts'  version  is  nothing  but  an  imita- 
tion, and  confessedl}'  a  very  imperfect  imitation.  Xo  one  has 
ever  claimed  that  it  Avas  a  literal  rendering  of  the  psalms  into 
metre.  Its  author  did  not  make  this  claim  for  it.  Neither 
has  any  one  claimed  for  Eouse's  version  t))at  it  is  absolutely 
literal.  It  was  however,  claimed  for  it,  on  good  and  solid 
grounds,  that  it  was  "  translated  and  diligently  compared  with 
the  origliud  text  and  foriiicr  translcd'ons,''  and  made  "  more 
smooth  and  agreeable  to  the  fc.rf  than  auN"  heretofore." 

It  claimed  to  be  agreeable  to  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  Psal- 
ter, and  to  be  smoother  than  any  version  of  the  psalms  which 
had  preceded  it.  That  it  is  absolutely  literal,  and  absolutely 
finished  English  verse,  is  a  claim  which  has  never  been  set  up 
for  it. 

The  version  of  Dr.  Watts  is  smoother,  but  certainly  not  so 
poetic,  unless  the  whole  of  poetry  consists  in  something  which 
both  Shakspcare  and  Milton  did  not  possess. 

The  relative  merits  of  the  two  versions,  however,  is  a  matter 
of  very  little  importance ;  for  these  were  soon  lost  sight  of, 
and  one  of  far  graver  importance  took  its  place.  That  ques- 
tion is  correctly  stated  thus :  "  Have  we  any  authority  in  the 
Scriptures  for  singing  in  the  formal  public  and  private  worship 
of  God  any  psalms  or  hymns  or  s[)iritual  songs,  except  those 
which  God  has  given  to  the  church,  all  of  which  are  contained 
in  the  Bible  ?" 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  2-21 

On  this  question  the  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
were  for  a  long  time  divided.  The  division  was  b}'  no  means 
equal — the  great  majority  ever  being  on  the  side  which  re- 
garded it  as  a  matter  of  indifference  what  was  sung,  provided 
it  was  not  Rouse's  version.  The  reason  of  this  was  because 
the  pure  Scotch  element  was  never,  at  an}-  time,  very  distinct 
and  prominent  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  America. 

The  members  of  the  Associate  Church  generall}',  and  the 
Covenanters  as  a  whole,  were  opposed  to  worshipping  God 
with  anything  which  he  himself  had  not  directly  furnished. 

Both  Associates  and  Covenanters  were  opposed  to  singing 
in  formal  worship  anything  but  a  literal  version  of  the  psalms, 
so  far  as  this  was  possible,  and  on  no  account  would  they  au- 
thorize a  hymn  composed  by  man — ^no  matter  how  beautiful — : 
to  be  used  in  the  formal  worship  of  God.  They  regarded  it  as 
a  sin. 

This  at  once  made  the  dividing  line  between  the  Associates 
find  Covenanters,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  hymn-singing  Pres- 
byterians on  the  other,  in  America,  clear  and  distinct.  The 
Covenanters  and  Associates  held  that  it  was  a  sin  to  sing  in 
worship  to  God  compositions  merely  human,  while  the  great 
body  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  held  that  it  was 
not. 

By  no  act  of  either  the  Associate  Church,  or  the  Eeformed 
Presbyterian  Church,  or  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  was 
■either  Watts'  psalms  or  Watts'  hymns,  or  the  hymns  of  any 
one  else  allowed  to  be  used  in  the  worship  of  God. 

From  a  variety  of  causes,  however,  at  a  very  early  period  in 
the  history  of  both  the  Associate  and  the  Covenanter  Churches 
in  America,  a  tendency  to  depart  from  the  old  paths  began  to 
manifest  itself.  This,  inallprobabilit}^  arose,  in  part,  at  least, 
from  that  inclination  which  is  in  most  persons,  to  do  as  others 
•do.  Previous  to  1753,  a  few  Presbyterian  congregations  had 
introduced  Watts'  psalms,  and  the  General  Assembly  first  tol- 
erated it  and  afterwards  sanctioned  it. 

In  1773,  the  Rev.  William  Marshall,  by  the  appointment  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  preached  a  sermon 
"  designed  to  show  that  the  Psalms  of  David  only  are  to  be 
used  in  worship."  This  sermon  was  afterward  published  and 
is  still  preserved  as  a  relic  of  the  past. 


222  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  fact  that  the  presbytery  thought  fit  to  "  appoint  one  of 
its  members  to  preach  a  sermon  to  show  that  the  Psalms  of 
David  only  are  to  be  used  in  worship,"  seems  to  indicate  with 
considerable  certainty  that  some  persons  under  the  inspection 
of  the  presbytery,  either  had  lax  practices,  or  latitudinarian 
notions  respecting  psalmody. 

Dnrins^  the  time  that  the  Confession  of  Faitli  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  was  under  consideration,  it  was  discov- 
ered that  entire  unanimity  of  sentiment  did  not  exist  among 
the  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  on  the  question 
of  psalmody.  Some  were  in  favor  of  adopting  the  same  position 
on  the  question  of  psalmody  as  that  occupied  by  the  Church  of 
Scotland  and  the  Secession  Church  of  Scotland.  Others  were 
in  favor  of  adopting  a  higher,  and,  as  was  thought,  a  more 
Scriptural  position. 

It  is  a  fact  well  attested,  that  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
has  always  occupied  higher  ground  on  the  psalmody  question 
than  either  the  ^National  Church  of  Scotland  or  the  Secession 
Church  of  Scotland.  While  both  these  adopted  the  psalms  of 
David  as  proper  to  be  used  in  singing  ])raise  to  God,  they  did 
not  forbid  the  use  of  paraphrases  or  hymns.  This  was  the 
ground  taken  by  some  of  those  who  originally  constituted  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church.  How  many  there  were  who  en- 
tertained this  opinion  it  is  impossible  now  to  learn.  There 
were  others  who  entertained  views  on  the  psalmody  question 
higher  than  their  fathers.  Hence,  there  is  a  difference  between 
the  Section  '■'■on  singing  of  psalms"  in  the  Scotch  Confession  of 
Faith  and  that  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Confession  of  Faith. 
That  the  reader  may  compare  the  two,  and  as  the  Scotch  Con- 
fession is  not  generally  accessible,  the  Section  which  treats  of 
singing  psalms  will  be  quoted  entire.     It  is  as  follows :    ^ 

"  It  is  the  duty  of  Christiaus  to  praise  God  j^ublicly,  by  singing  of  psalms  to- 
gether in  the  congregation,  and  also  privately  in  the  family.  In  singing  of 
psalms,  the  voice  is  to  be  tunably  and  gravely  ordered  ;  but  the  chief  care  must 
be  to  sing  with  the  understanding  and  with  grace  in  the  heart,  making  melody 
unto  the  Lord.  That  the  whole  congregation  may  join  herein,  every  one  that 
can  read  is  to  have  a  psalm-book  ;  all  others  not  disabled  by  age  or  otherwiee 
are  to  be  exhorted  to  learn  to  read.  But  for  the  present,  where  many  in  the  con- 
gregation cannot  read,  it  is  convenient  that  the  minister,  or  some  other  fit  per- 
son appointed  by  him  and  the  other  ruling  otBcers.  do  read  the  psalm,  line  by 
line,  before  the  singing  thereof." 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  223'. 

AVheu  the  above  Avas  adopted,  the  question  of  hvmn  sine-insj 
did  not  exist  in  the  Church  of  Scotland.  In  addition,  it  ma}'' 
be  said  that  in  this,  as  well  as  in  several  other  things  essential 
to  the  purity  of  the  church,  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  only 
in  a  formative  state. 

This  section  "  on  singing  of  psalms  '"'  the  fathers  of  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  remodeled,  as  the  reader  will  readily 
discover.  The  Section  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Confession 
of  Faith  takes  higher  ground  than  the  same  section  in  the 
Scotch  Confession  ;  but  it  is  to  be  doubted  whether  it  is  as 
high  as  the  uniform  practice  in  strict  Associate  Reformed  con- 
gregations has  ever  been. 

Paragraph  2  of  Section  III  of  the  Directory  for  Public  Wor- 
ship^ of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  is  both  weak  and 
strong.  It  is  ambiguous.  The  first  part  of  that  Section  is  a 
mild  commendation  of  the  propriety  of  singing  the  psalms  of 
David  in  the  public  and  private  worship  of  God,  but  it  does 
not  condemn  the  use  of  paraphrases  of  Scripture,  or  hymns 
merely  human.  The  last  sentence  or  clause  of  that  Section 
o-ives  force  to  the  whole.  It  was,  however,  with  considerable 
difficulty  and  only  after  long  discussion,  that  this  clause  was 
added.  Paragraph  2  of  Section  III,  of  the  Directory  for  Wor- 
ships when  first  penned,  read  as  follows  : 

It  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  sacred  songs  contained  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  be 
sung  in  His  worship,  both  public  and  private,  to  the  end  of  the  world;  and  the 
rich  variety  and  perfect  purity  of  their  matter,  the  blessing  of  God  upon  them 
iu  every  age.  and  the  edification  of  the  church  thence  arising,  sets  the  propriety 
of  singing  them  in  a  convincing  light. 

Here  the  paragraph  ended,  and  here  by  some  it  was  de- 
signed and  desired  to  end. 

By  some  it  was,  and  correctly,  too,  regarded  as  ambiguous. 
It  praised  the  psalms  of  David,  but  did  not  condemn  as  unfit 
for  the  worship  of  God  the  hymns  of  Dr.  Watts  or  of  Alexan- 
der Pope,  or  of  William  Cowper,  or  of  anybody  else. 

To  free  the  paragrajth  of  ambiguity  the  clause,  ''  Xor  shall 
ail}'  composure  merely  human  be  sung  in  any  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Churches,"  was  added  by  the  Rev.  John  Hemphill,, 
of  Hopewell,  Chester  county,  S.  C. 


224  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Ally  one  reading  over  carefully  the  whole  paragraph  Avill 
discover  that  it  is  not  the  production  of  one  man.     The  sen 
tence  was  so  framed  as  to  end  with  "convincing  light,"  and 
the  last  clause  is  by  another  hand. 

The  paragraph,  when  amended  and  adopted,  was  not  as 
strong-  as  some  of  the  members  desired ;  but  when  asked  why 
the}^  did  not  make  it  stronger,  they  replied:  ''It  is  the  best 
we  could  get." 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY, 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  COMMUNION  QUESTION—The  Londonderry  Presbytery— Dr.  Mason's 
Difficulty  Complicated — Dr.  Mason's  Reasons  for  Resigning  his  Charge — His 
Labors — Purpose  Thwarted  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Congregation — With  a 
•  Colony  began  to  Establish  a  Third  Congregation  in  New  York — Had  Diffi- 
culty to  get  a  Place  of  Worship — Was  Granted  Conditionally  Dr.  Romeyn's 
Church — The  Offer  Accepted — Dr.  Mason's  Preaching — The  Effect  upon  the 
Two  Congregations — They  Commune  Together — The  Case  Came  Before  the 
General  Synod — Dr.  Mason's  Statements  Respecting  His  Course — The  Doc- 
trine of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  Respecting  the  Communion  of  Saints 
—The  XXVIth  Chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith— The  Little 
Constitution — Doctrine  of  the  early  Seceders  and  Covenanters  respecting  the 
Communion  of  Saints — Wilson  Quoted — Shields  Quoted — Gellatly  Quoted — 
The  Narrative  Quoted — The  State  of  Things  when  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  was  Organized — No  Brotherly  Love — This  Had  Been  the  Case  since 
1679 — The  Burghei-s  and  Anti-Burghers — Practically,  There  was  No  Such 
thing  as  Occasional  Communion  Prior  to  1810 — Its  Lawfulness  Admitted  by 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church — The  Occasional  Communion  of  the  Associ- 
ate Reformed  Fathers  not  the  Modern,  Catholic  Communion — Dr.  Mason's 
Peculiar  Circumstances — His  Act  was  Conti-ary  to  Custom,  but  not  to  Law — 
The  Case  of  Messrs.  Matthews  and  Clark— All  Tried  Together— This  Unfor- 
tunate— Resolution  Passed — General  Dissatisfaction — Dr.  Mason  Preaches  for 
Dr.  Romeyn — Uses  Watts'  Psalms — Clear  Violation  of  Law — Mr.  Clark  Cen- 
surable— The  Vote  in  the  Case — No  One  Satisfied — The  Parties  Disposed  to 
be  Exti-emists. 

The  psalmody  question  and  the  communion  question  may  be 
vsaid  to  have  been  coeval,  and  became,  not  necessarily,  but  ac- 
tually connected.  The  Presbytery  of  Londonderry,  as  has 
been  elsewhere  stated,  soon  after  its  organization,  hegan  to 
show  visible  signs  of  insubordination  to  the  ecclesiastical 
courts,  both  in  the  matter  of  psalmody  and  communion.  It 
was  not,  however,  until  abput  the  year  1810  that  the  contro- 
versies on  these  questions  began  to  disturb  the  church  gene- 
rally and  threaten  its  extermination. 

Prior  to  that  time,  although  some  diversity  of  opinion  ex- 
isted among  the  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
concerning  psalmody  and  communion,  these  questions  had  not 
•come,  at  least  prominently  before   anj^  of  the  courts  of  the 

16 


226  HISTORY    OP    THE 

church  for  adjudication.  From  that  time  on,  until  1822.  the- 
General  Synod'  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  hegan  tc 
show  constant  and  increasing  signs  of  premature  decay. 

On  the  25th  of  May,  1810,  Dr.  John  M.  :Mason  resigned  the 
pastoral  charge  of  the  Cedar  Street  Clnirch,  in  ISTew  York. 
lie  had  heen  contemplating  this  for  about  three  years.  In 
1807  he  asked  for  an  assistant,  but  owing  to  the  tinancial  crisis- 
through  which  the  country  was  soon  called  to  pass  this  request 
was  not  pressed.  The  reasons  which  induced  Dr.  Mason  to 
ask  for  an  assistant  afterward  prompted  him,  in  part,  to  demit 
the  pastoral  care  of  the  congregation  in  which  his  father  had- 
labored  faithfully  and  diligently  for  thirty  years. 

Besides  being  pastor  of  a  large  congregation,  Dr.  Mason  was 
professor  in  the  theological  seminary,  and  in  some  way  con- 
nected with  all  the  benevolent  operations  and  schemes  of  his 
own  denomination  and  of  several  other  denominations.  His 
time  was  wholly  occupied.  He  had  no  time  to  attend  to  his 
parochial  duties.  All  that  he  could  attempt  as  a  pastor  was  to- 
preach. 

In  1809,  he  proposed  to  the  trustees  of  the  church  that  some 
steps  be  taken  to  enlarge  the  house  of  worship.  The  avowed 
design  he  had  in  view  by  this  movement  was  to  increase  the 
numerical  strength  of  the  congregation,  and  thereby  increase 
it  pecuniarily.  This  would  enable  the  congregation  to  employ 
an  assistant  pastor. 

The  trustees  were  unwilling  to  undertake  the  erection  of  a 
new  house  of  worship  at  that  time,  and  replied  to  his  request 
that  they  had  concluded  to  postpone  the  matter  for  the  present. 
Dr.  Mason  promptly  determined,  on  the  reception  of  the  reply 
of  the  trustees  of  the  congregation,  to  demit  his  charge. 

It  is  highl}'  probable  that  Dr.  Mason  felt  aggrieved  by  the 
want  of  compliance  on  the  part  of  the  trustees.  His  plans 
were  frustrated,  and  the  long- cherished  liope  of  obtaining  an 
assistant  blighted.  Between  him  and  the  congregation  there 
was  no  quarrel — no  open  rupture.  By  some  he  was  the  idol,, 
but  by  others — and  thej^  of  the  older  and  stricter  sort — he  was 
simply  "  the  prince  of  preachers." 

The  congregation  having  been  called  together,  were  informed 
by  Dr.  Mason  that  it  was  his  fixed  purpose  to  resign  his  pas- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  22 T 

toral  charge.  This  he  accordingly  did,  and  -after  some  hesi- 
tancy, his  resignation  was,  by  the  Presbytery  of  Xew  York, 
accepted. 

It  was  not  the  design  of  Dr.  Mason,  in  demitting  his  pas- 
toral charge,  to  abandon  the  pulpit.  "  To  preach  Jesus  Christ 
and  him  crucified,"  he  declared  at  the  time,  "  is  my  honor  and 
happiness."  With  a  small  colony  he  began  immediately  the 
building  up  of  a  third  Associcite  Reformed  Church  in  the  city 
of  ISTew  York.  The  erection  of  a  liouse  of  worship  was  begun 
in  Murray  street.  This,  however,  was  not  completed  until  the 
summer  of  1812. 

Dr.  Mason  and  his  colony  experienced  considerable  difficulty^ 
at  first  in  obtaining  a  house  of  worship.  In  the  midst  of  their 
strait,  the  trustees  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  Cedar  street 
generously  tendered  them  the  use  of  their  house,  at  such  times- 
as  it  was  not  occupied  by  themselves. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  John  B.  Romeyn  was,  at  the  time,  pastor  of 
the  cOno'reo-ation.  The  hours  of  worship  were  so  arrano-ed 
that  Dr.  Mason  immediately  succeeded  Dr.  Romeyn.  A  large 
number  of  Dr.  Romeyn's  congregation  remained  and  formed  a 
jjart  of  Dr.  Mason's  constant  hearers. 

At  no  time  in  all  his  life  were  the  pulpit  powers  of  Dr.  Ma- 
son so  manifestly  felt.  He  exerted  himself.  His  whole  soul 
Avas  in  the  work.  His  hearers  were  interested,  delighted  and 
moved. 

By  force  of  circumstances,  the  two  congregations  became  ac- 
quainted with  each  other,  and  having  become  acquainted,  they 
formed  for  each  other  a  mutual  attachment.  Practicallj',  they 
were,  only  for  the  time  being,  one  congregation.  "When  the  time 
came  for  administering  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
Dr.  Mason  and  his  session  resolved  to  invite  Dr.  Romeyn's 
congregation  to  unite  with  them  in  this  holy  ordinance.  This 
invitation -was  accepted,  and  a  similar  invitation  was  extended 
when  Dr.  Romeyn  dispensed  the  sacrament  to  his  people.  This 
also  was  accepted. 

In  describing  this  act,  which  resulted,  we  may  safely  say,  in 
so  much  harm  to  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  Dr.  Mason 
says: 


228  HISTORY    OF    THE 

■•  The  invitations  \v<ere  as  cordially  accepted  as  they  were  frankly  given.  The 
bulk  of  the  members  of  both  churches,  as  well  as  some  belonging  to  correlate 
churches,  mingled  their  affections  and  their  testimony  in  the  holy  ordinance. 
The  ministers  reci^jrocated  the  services  of  the  sacramental  day  ;  and  the  com- 
munion thus  established  has  been  perpetuated  with  increasing  delight  and  attach- 
ment, and  has  extended  itself  to  ministers  and  private  Christians  of  other 
churches." 

Dr.  Mason  further  adds  that  "  such  an  event,  it  is  believed, 
had  never  before  occurred  in  the  United  States."'  It  is  taken 
for  granted  that  Dr.  Mason  thought  deliberately  when  he 
penned  this  last  sentence.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  is  true  beyond  all  contro- 
versy that  so  far  as  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  was  con- 
cerned, no  such  event  had  ever  occurred.  It  w-as  a  clear  and 
marked  departure  from  the  practice  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  but  not  from  her  laws.  Every  one  possessing  even  a 
tolerable  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Cburch  will  admit  that  in  practice  she  did  not  difter  from  the 
Associate  or  Reformed  Presbyterian  Churches  on  the  subject 
-of  communion- 

The  Associate  Reformed  Church  adopted  the  XXVIth  Chap- 
ter of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  In  that  Chapter 
it  is  taught  that  "  all  saints  that  are  united  to  Jesus  Christ, 
their  head,  by  his  spirit,  and  by  faith,  have  fellowship  with 
him  in  his  graces,  sufferings,  death,  resurrection  and  glory." 
Again :  "  Saints  by  profession  are  bound  to  maintain  a  holy 
fellowship  in  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  performing  such  other 
spiritual  services  as  tend  to  their  mutual  edification." 

The  fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  most  certainly 
thought  that  they  were  warranted  by  the  XXVIth  Chapter  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  in  extending  communion  to  all  who, 
in  every  place,  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  conformity 
to  his  \Y\\\.  Of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for  they  positively 
say  so  in  so  many  words. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  in 
1783,  the  following  was  adopted  and  became  a  part  and  parcel 
of  wdiat  is  known  as  the  Little  Constitution: 

It  is  the  resolution  of  this  Synod  to  treat  pious  people  of  other  denomina- 
tions with  great  attention  and  tenderness.  They  are  willing,  as  God  affords 
opportunity,  to  extend  communion  to  all  who,  in  every  place,  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus;  but  as  occasional  communion,  in  a  divided  state  of  the 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  229 

Church,  may  be  attended  with  great  disorders,  they  hold  themselves  bound  to 
submit  to  every  restriction  of  their  liberty  which  general  edification  renders 
necessary. 

In  a  foot-note  they  say  : 

The  princi^jle  expressed  in  this  Article  is  not  a  new  one.  It  is  an  original 
principle  of  the  Secession,  and  is  set  in  a  convincing  light  in  the  XXVIth  Chap- 
ter of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

The  following  quotation  from  the  Eev.  AVilliam  Wilson's 
"  Defense  of  Reformed  Principles  "  shows  most  clearly  that  the 
Seceders  and  Eeforraed  Presbyterians  held  the  same  opinion  on 
the  subject  of  communion.  The  following  is  the  language  of 
Mr.  AVilson,  one  of  the  four  who  organized  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery : 

There  is  a  union  and  communion  catholic  and  universal  among  all  Christians, 
considered  as  such,  and  an  ecclesiastical  union  and  communion  amongst  mem- 
bers of  one  particular  organical  church,  considered  as  members  of  that  church. 
This,  observe.  I  take  from  Mr.  Shields  on  Church  Communion,  jjage  25.  The 
same  worthy  author  (Mr.  Shields),  likewise  observes  that  organic  communion 
must  be  on  stricter  terms  than  catholic  communion  with  others  that  are  not 
members  of  the  same  organic  church. 

The  above  is  also  quoted  by  Mr.  Gellatly,  in  his  answer  to 
the  "  Detection  Detected,"  as  expressing  his  views  and  the 
views  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Scotland,  and  also  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsjdvauia. 

In  the  "Overture"  published  by  order  of  Synod,  in  1787, 
the  follojving  language  occurs: 

That  a  temporary,  or  what  is  called  occasional,  communion  with  sister  churches, 
may  lawfully  in  some  instances  take  place,  is  what  no  man  of  understanding, 
who  is  not  too  much  pinched  to  support  some  favorite  and  false  hypothesis,  will 
deny.  The  terms  of  it  are  not  materially  different  from  the  terms  of  stated 
communion,  only  making  allowance  for  a  variety  of  innocent  customs  and 
forms. 

Those  of  the  Associate  Church  who  did  not  go  into  the 
union  which  formed  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  certainly 
thought  that  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  regarded  tem- 
porary or  occasional  communion  lawful,  in  some  instances,  as 
the  quotation  from  their  "  Xarrative  "  will  show : 

This  new  Synod  (the  Associate  Reformed),  so  far  as  we  can  understand  the 
Sixth  and  Seventh  Ai-ticles  of  their  Constitution  (Little  Constitution),  have  one 
set  of  terms  on  which  they  admit  people  to  what  they  call  fixed  communion; 
another  set  of  terms  on  which  they  will  admit  people  to  what  they  call  occasional 
communion. 


230  HISTORY    OF    THE 

At  tlie  time  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  was  organized, 
all  the  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  were  in  a  very 
disturbed  state.  This  disturbance  was  one  of  long  standing. 
After  the  battle  of  Bothwell  Bridge,  hi  1679,  the  strict  Cov- 
enanters had  very  little  social  intercourse,  and  no  Christian 
communion  with  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Time  seems  to  have 
had  very  little  effect  in  narrowing  the  chasm  which  separated 
these  stanch  adherents  to  the  Covenants  from  all  other  parties. 
Among  them  occasional  communion  had  no  practical  existence, 
although  Alexander  Shields  says  that  "organic  communion 
must  be  on  stricter  terms  than  catholic  communion  with  others 
that  are  not  members  of  the  same  organic  church." 

After  the  organization  of  the  Associate  Presbytery,  in  1733, 
practically  all  communion  was  broken  between  the  Church  of 
Scotland  and  the  Secession  party ;  and  after  the  rupture,  in 
1747,  in  the  Secession  Church,  there  was  even  less  social  inter- 
course and  Christian  fellowship  between  the  Burghers  and 
Anti-Burghers  than  between  them  and  those  from  whom  both 
parties  had  seceded. 

The  Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers  carried  their  opposition  to 
€ach  other  to  an  extent  which  fills  the  mind  with  astonish- 
ment. The  cheek  is  mantled  with  shame  on  the  mere  recita- 
tion of  the  unchristian  acts  and  words  done  and  said  by  those 
Christian  people.  "The  nearest  relatives  and  once  most  affec- 
tionate friends  beheld,"  says  one  who  relates  what  he  had  wit- 
nessed, "  one  another  with  a  vindictive*  eye,  and  were  mutually 
treated  with  a  rudeness  scarcely  to  be  found  among  heathens 
standing  under  parallel  connections.  So  raging  was  the  infat- 
uation that  many  esteemed  it  a  daring  provocation  of  the  most 
high  God  to  join  vvith  any  of  the  o]iposite  party  in  the  most 
general  acts  of  divine  worship,  in  familj'  prayer,  or  even  in  ask- 
ing the  Lord's  blessing  upon  and  returning  him  thanks  for  the 
bounties  of  common  Providence." 

Practically,  occasional  or  temporary  communion  had  no  exist- 
ence, only  in  very  rare  cases,  in  any  branch  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  either  in  America  or  Europe,  prior  to  1810.  Its 
lawfulness  was  admitted  by  all  except  those  "  pinched  to  sup- 
port a  favorite  and  false  hypothesis;"  butits practice  rarely  had 
eveu  a  nominal  existence. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  231 

However  shameful  it  may  be,  it  is  nevertheless  true,  that 
very  little  brotherly  love  existed  between  the  various  branches 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  more  than  a  century  prior  to 
the  organization  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  It  would 
do  the  cause  of  Christianity  no  good  were  the  abusive  epithets 
which  they  heaped  upon  each  other  repeated.  Such  being  the 
case,  no  matter  how  they  interpreted  the  XXVItli  chapter  of 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  tliey  could  not  and  did 
not  practice  occasional  communion. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  by  occasional  communion  the 
fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  did  not  mean  the 
same  thing  as  that  which,  at  the  present  day  is  denominated 
catholic  communion.  This  latitudinarian  scheme,  as  it  was 
called,  they  regarded  as  "  subversive  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  and  as  having  a  natural  tendency  to  promote 
error  and  to  extinguish  zeal  for  many  important  parts  of  the 
gospel." 

It  ^is  clear  that  the  founders  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  desired  and  designed  to  be,  on  the  communion  ques- 
tion, both  in  theory  and  practice,  neither  absolutely  restricted 
nor  absolutely  catholic.  They  endeavored  to  avoid  both  these, 
as  they  thought,  unscriptural  extremes,  and  to  practice  a  cum- 
munion  which  was  consistent  with  law  and  order.  They  did 
not  design  to  unchurch  all  other  churches  by  saying  that  under 
no  circumstances  their  members  would  be  allowed  to  commune 
with  them ;  neither  did  they  design  opening  the  door  of  the 
church  so  wide  that  all  who  claimed  to  be  Christians  would  be 
.admitted  to  sealing  ordinances. 

"Whether  Dr.  John  M,  Mason  and  his  Infant  congregation, 
•situated  as  they  were,  violated  the  law  and  order  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church,  is  a  question  which  does  not  admit  of 
positive  affirmative  or  negative  answer.  If  it  is  tested  by  the 
practice  of  the  Associate,  the  Associate  Reformed,  the  Re- 
formed Presbyterian,  or  the  Church  of  Scotland,  it  was  cer- 
tainly contrary  to  the  common  law  of  the  church ;  for  "  no  such 
event  had  ever  before  occurred  in  America  or  in  Europe."  But  if 
the  Act  is  examined  with  respect  to  its  conformity  to  the  de- 
liverance of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  the  conclusion 
cwould,  in  all  probability  be  that  Dr.  Mason  and  his  people  only 


232  HISTORY    OF    THE 

enjoyed  a  privilege  granted  them  by  the  laws  of  the  church. 
In  1811,  the  matter  was  brought  before  the  General  Synod  by 
the  following : 

It  was  moved  by  Dr.  Gray  aud  Mr.  Dick  : 

Whebeas,  Reports  are  in  circulation,  and  generally  believed,  that  the  Rev- 
John  M.  Mason  and  the  Rev.  Messrs.  James  M.  Matthews  and  John  X.  Clark 
have  entered  into  ministerial  and  Christian  communion  with  another  church, 
which  has  excited  a  great  deal  of  dissatisfaction  in  several  parts  of  our  church  ; 
And  whereas,  It  is  the  duty  of  this  court  to  enquire  into  matters  which  affect  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  church  ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  enquire  into  the  truth  of  said 
report,  and  into  the  circumstances  of  the  fact,  if  it  prov^e  to  be  a  fact. 

The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  a  committee  consisting  of 
Dr.  Gray,  Messrs.  Mairs, Henderson,  McChord  and  McWilliams 
was  appointed. 

This  committee  concluded  that  "the  shortest  way  for  gain- 
ing an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  in 
the  case  was  to  enquire  at  the  mouth  of  the  brethren  them- 
selves." This  they  accordinglj^  did,  and  after  each  one  of  the 
brethren  against  whom  complaint  was  brought  had  made  his 
statement,  the  committee  reported  as  follows : 

After  Dr.  Mason  was  released  from  the  pastoral  chai'ge  of  the  First  congrega- 
tion in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  a  part  of  that  congregation  was  erected  into  a 
separate  vacancy,  to  which  he  was  appointed  supply,  it  became  necessary  for 
this  new  congregation  to  obtain  a  place  of  meeting  for  their  public  worship. 
This  they  found  no  easy  task;  but  were  defeated  in  their  attempts  to  procure  a, 
temporary  accommodation  until  the  house  which  they  contemplated  building 
should  be  comjileted  for  their  reception.  At  last  the  trustees  of  that  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  of  which  Dr.  Romeyn  is  pastor,  granted  free  use  of  their  meeting 
house  at  such  times  as  did  not  interfere  with  the  seasons  of  their  own  worship. 
And  Dr.  Mason,  with  the  vacancy  under  his  care,  have  since  that  time  held  their 
meetings  in  said  house,  assembling  after  the  dismission  of  Dr.  Romeyn's  church, 
on  the  Lord's  day,  both  forenoon  and  afternoon. 

This  circumstance  introduced  the  two  societies  to  the  most  intimate  acquaint- 
ance, and  occasioned  each  frequently  to  wait  on  the  ministrations  of  the  other. 
The  consequence  was  a  high  degree  of  mutual  affection,  confidence  and  esteem. 
On  the  first  occasion  that  Dr.  Mason  administered  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  his  congregation,  it  was,  on  consultation  with  the  session,  thought 
proper  to  admit  Dr.  Romeyn  and  his  people  to  the  communion. 

When  Dr.  Romeyn  next  administered  the  Lord's  Supper,  an  invitation  was 
given  to  the  people  of  Dr.  Mason's  charge  to  participate,  and  it  was  accepted. 

The  intercommunion  thus  began  has  continued  ever  since.  But  it  is  not  viewed 
by  Dr.  Mason  and  the  people  of  his  charge  as  any  thing  else  than  the  application  of 
the  principle  expressed  in  Chapter  XXVI,  Section  2,  of  the  Confession  of  Faith; 
nor  as  involving  the  question  or  communion  with  any  other  church  than  that 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  233- 

one  iu  which  they  are,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  so  peculiarly  connected.  Nor 
is  it  contemplated  to  continue,  after  they  shall  obtain  a  separate  place  of  public 
worship,  which  they  are  making  preparation  to  build. 

With  respect  to  ministerial  communion,  the  following  is  the  fact :  That  a  few 
Sabbaths  since.  Dr.  Mason  received  an  invitation  from  Dr.  Romeyn  to  conduct 
the  public  worship  of  his  congregation,  which  he  accepted ;  and  on  that  occasion 
used  the  established  order  of  worship  in  the  church.  Mr.  Matthews,  who  has  no 
pastoral  charge,  joined  in  the  communion  before  stated,  as  a  member  of  Dr. 
Mason's  church;  but  has  never  held  ministerial  communion  with  any  other  than 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  He  looks  upon  this  as  merely  occasional  com- 
munion, rendered  proper  by  the  peculiarity  of  circumstances,  and  not  as  involv  - 
ing  the  question  of  communion  with  any  other  congregation  than  that  of  Dr. 
Romeyn;  nor  with  that  under  circumstances  diflerent  from  the  present. 

The  case  of  Mr.  Clarke  is  somewhat  differently  circumstanced.  Being  indis- 
posed, and  having  engaged  a  brother  minister  to  fill  his  pulpit,  he  went  to  Dr. 
Millers  church;  and  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  being  that  day  dis- 
pensed, he  accepted  an  invitation  and  participated.  He  has  never  engaged  in 
ministerial  communion  out  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 

On  reviewing  all  these  facts  and  circumstances,  the  committee  found  itself 
involved  in  considerable  difficulty.  On  the  one  hand  they  see  no  sufficient  cause 
to  depart  from  that  restricted  communion  in  the  seals  of  the  new  covenant 
which  has  hitherto  obtained  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church;  much  less  can 
they  approve  of  that  vague  and  indiscriminate  communion  which  prevails  in 
different  parts  of  the  land,  and  which,  by  rendering  the  ascertainment  of  Chris- 
tian principles  and  character  impossible,  tends  to  make  men  indifferent  to  the 
faith,  piety  and  righteousness  of  those  whom  they  recognize  as  brethren  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  with  whom  they  associate  in  the  most  solemn  acts  of  religious 
worship.  Also,  everything  tending  to  create  jealousies,  destroy  confidence  and 
mar  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  is  deeply  to  be  re- 
gretted. 

On  the  other  hand,  they  cannot  but  acknowledge  that  the  congregation  in  New 
York  was  placed  in  unusual  circumstances.  They  were,  in  the  holy  providence 
of  God,  connected  with  the  church  of  Dr.  Romeyn  by  very  tender  ties;  and  they 
had  full  means  of  being  morally  satisfied  respecting  the  faith  and  character  of 
those  with  whom  they  were  to  hold  communion.  A  declinature  on  their  part  to 
admit  to  their  communion  those  whom  they  sustained  on  due  means  of  knowl- 
edge, as  brethren  in  Christ  with  whom  they  were  daily  associating  in  other  acts 
of  religious  worship,  and  who  were  displaying  great  tenderness  and  good  offices 
toward  them,  might  have  chilled  Christian  love  on  both  sides,  led  to  invidious 
inquiries  and  altercations  and  have  exposed  Christianity  to  derision  in  the  eyes 
of  its  enemies.  They  must  have  anticipated,  and  did  anticipate  that  the  step 
they  were  taking  would  create  uneasiness  in  the  breasts  of  their  brethren  in 
other  parts  of  the  country.  Thus  situated,  it  must  have  been  painful  for  them 
to  reflect  that,  act  as  they  might,  they  must  give  dissatisfaction  to  some  persons. 
It  is  for  this  Synod  to  judge,  whether,  under  all  the  circumstances,  the  conduc- 
of  these  ministers  and  that  congregation  was  Christian  and  judicious,  calculated 
to  promote  the  interests  of  Christ's  Kingdom,  on  the  spot  where  the  event  took 
place ;  as  also  whether  it  was  compatible  with  that  regard  to  peace  and  harmony 
so  incumbent  on  those  connected  by  the  solemn  bonds  of  ecclesiastical  covenant.^. 


234  HISTORY    OF    THE 

In  regard  to  the  ministerial  commnnion  wliicli  Dr.  Mason  held  with  Dr.  Ro- 
meyn,  the  only  circumstance  which  has  created  any  displeasure  is  that  of  the 
psalmody  used  on  the  occasion. 

On  Mr.  Clarke's  conduct  the  committee  cannot  but  look  with  disapprobation- 
They  do  not  think  it  was  his  duty  to  neglect  assembling  with  his  own  church, 
though  another  minister  was  to  lead  the  public  offices.  And  they  cannot  see 
that  the  providence  of  God  called  him,  on  so  casual  an  event  as  that  of  stepping 
into  a  church  during  the  period  of  administering  the  Lord's  Sujjper,  to  join  in 
that  holy  ordinance,  knowing,  as  he  must  have  done,  that  such  conduct  would 
displease  and  grieve  a  great  portion  of  that  part  of  the  church  of  God  with 
which  he  was  connected;  while  a  different  conduct  could  give  no  offense  to  the 
family  of  faith. 

The  facts  in  the  case  having  been  clearly,  f  ally  and  impiirtially 
set  forth  in  the  above  report,  at  a  subsequent  session  of  the 
Synod,  the  following  resolution  was  otfered  b}'  the  Rev.  Mat- 
thew Henderson,  Jr.,  and  the  Rev.  Mungo  Dick. 

Whereas.  It  appears  that  Dr.  Mason  and  Messrs.  Matthews  and  Clarke  have 
joined  in  the  ortlinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
North  America;  And  ivhereas,  It  also  appears  that  Dr.  Mason  has  ministerially 
joined  with  said  church  in  the  use  of  psalms,  the  composition  of  which  is  merely 
human — all  which  being  contrary  to  the  established  order  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  and  having  a  tendency  to  injure  the  cause  of  the  Redeemer  in 
their  hands;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  Synod  do  declare  their  decided  disapi^robation  of  the  de- 
portment of  said  brethren  in  the  premises,  and  command  them  to  return  to  the 
established  order  of  the  church. 

When  the  vole  on  this  resolution  was  taken,  three  voted  in 
favor  of  it,  thirteen  voted  against  it,  and  two  were  silent.  It 
was  during  the  consideration  of  this  resolution  that  Dr.  J.  M. 
Mason  delivered  the  most  powerful  speech  of  his  life.  It  con- 
sumed three  hours  in  its  delivery,  and  was  ever  after  spoken  of 
as  the  "  mighty  speech." 

The  only  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  vote  of  the  Gene- 
ral Synod  is  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  members 
present  were  disposed  to  interpret  the  action  of  the  brethren. 
Mason,  Matthews  and  Clarke,  as  not  censurable.  It  was,  per- 
haps, unfortunate  that  the  resolution  was  so  framed  as  to  place 
the  three  on  trial  at  the  same  time,  and  especially  since  two 
charges  were  brought  np  against  Dr.  Mason,  and  one  only 
against  Messrs.  Matthews  and  Clarke. 

So  far  as  the  inteV-communion  of  Dr.  Mason  and  his  congre- 
gation, of  which  Mr.  Matthews  claimed  to  be  a  member,  with 
Dr.  Romeyn  and  his  congregation  was  concerned,  it  is  almost 
certain  that  it  was  allowable  on  a  strict  construction  of  the  de- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  235 

liverances  of  the  Sj'Rod  Oil  various  occasions.  Dr.  Mason  did 
not,  at  the  time,  justify  it  on  any  other  ground  than  the  pecu- 
liar and  extraordinary  circumstances  in  which  he  and  his  con- 
gregation were  placed.  Further,  he  declared  that  it  was  neither 
his  desire  nor  intention  to  practice  this  occasional  communion 
after  his  church  was  completed.  The  case  of  Mr.  Matthews 
iind  Dr.  Mason  so  far  were  identical. 

The  case  of  Mr.  Clarke,  as  the  committee  correctly  say,  was 
different.  Having  engaged  Mr.  Stansbury  to  fill  his  pulpit,  he 
left  his  own  church  and  went  to  worship  in  another,  and  one 
of  a  diflerent  denomination.  lie  assorted  that  this  was  with- 
out any  previous  concert.  No  doubt  this  was  true  ;  but  be3'ond 
all  controvers}^  it  must  also  have  been  without  any  regard  for 
common  propriety.  By  no  just  interpretation  could  his  com- 
muning with  the  congregation  of  Dr.  Miller  be  regarded  as  the 
occasional  communion  contemplated  by  the  fathersof  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church.  Clearlj',  Mr.  Clarke  violated  not  only 
the  law  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  but 
transgressed  the  rules  and  regulations  which  are  well  estab- 
lished in  every  community  of  Christians.  It  is  expected,  and 
rightly,  too,  that  every  individual  will  worship  in  his  own 
church  when  there  are  services  in  that  church.  To  go  else- 
i;\diere,  is  to  treat  those  with  whom  he  is  denominationally  con- 
nected with  marked  disrespect  and  want  of  social  and  Chris- 
tian courtesy. 

The  other  and  graver  charge  brought  against  Dr.  Mason  was 
that  while  conducting  public  worship  for  Dr.  Romeyn,  he  used 
"  psalms  the  composition  of  which  is  merely  human."  This 
was  a  plain  violation  of  the  written  rules  and  regulations  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  It  is  not  known  on  what 
grounds  he  attempted  to  vindicate  this  act.  The  language  of 
the  third  Section  of  the  third  chapter  of  the  Directory  for 
Public  Worship,  adopted  in  1799,  is  too  positive  to  suppose 
that  he  undertook  to  claim  that  his  course  was  lawful.  ISTo 
matter  how  often  "psalms  the  composition  of  which  is  merely 
human  "  have  been  sung  by  Associate  Reformed  people — no 
matter  whether  by  preachers,  elders,  deacons  or  private  mem- 
bers— it  has  been  done,  in  every  instance,  in  direct  violation  of 
the  law  of  the  church. 


236  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  law  of  the  Associate  Eeformed  Church,  from  its  earliest 
existence  down  to  the  present  time,  ever  has  been  that  only 
the  psalms  contained  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  in  the  Bible  are 
to  be  used  in  the  public  and  private  worship  of  God.  Xo  ver- 
sion of  the  psalms  was  ever  formally  adopted  b}'  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church.  The  use  of  the  Scotch  version  was  simply 
continued,  but  not  formally  adopted.  The  reason  why  its  use 
was  continued  was  mainly  because  it  was,  as  a  metrical  trans- 
lation, regarded  as  far  superior  to  any  and  all  that  had  pre- 
ceded it. 

By  the  vote  of  the  General  Synod,  Messrs.  Mason,  Matthe\ys 
and  Clarke  were  not  censured. 

No  doubt,  there  Avere  some  who  were  ready  to  approve  of 
their  course  ;  but  it  is  not  fair  to  interpret  the  negative  vote 
of  the  Synod  as  a  vote  of  approbation. 

The  discussion  of  Messrs.  Plenderson  and  Dick's  resolution 
took  place  on  Saturday.  On  Monday  morning  Messrs.  Eben- 
ezer  Dickey  and  Alexander  Porter  moved  the  following  pre- 
amble and  resolution : 

Wheeeas,  a  diversity  of  judgment  and  practice  has  been  found  to  exist 
among  the  ministers  and  members  of  this  church  relative  to  the  application  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  concerning  the  communion  of  saints; 
And  whereas,  The  course  of  correct  procedure  in  this  matter  must  dejiend.  in  a 
great  measure,  upon  circumstances  which  cannot  be  provided  for  by  any  general 
rule;  therefore, 

Resolved,  'That  the  judicatories,  ministers  and  members  of  this  church  be.  and 
hereby  are,  entreated  and  required  to  exercise  mutual  forbearance  in  the  prem- 
ises; and  in  the  use  of  their  discretion  to  observe  mutual  tenderness  and  broth- 
erly love,  studying  to  avoid  whatever  may  be  contrary  thereto;  and  giving 
special  heed  to  the  preservation  of  sound  and  efficient  discipline. 

The  above  was  adopted  almost  unanimously — the  vote  being 
sixteen  for  it,  and  three  against  it.  So  far  as  the  resolution 
itself  is  concerned,  it  certainly  seems  to  be  fair  and  impartial. 
]Sro  advantage  is  taken  of  either  party.  Both  parties  are  "  re- 
quired to  exercise  mutual  forbearance."  It  failed,  however,  to 
satisfy  a  very  large  portion  of  the  church.  The  Synod  of  Scioto 
and  the  Synod  of  the  South  both  felt  aggrieved. 

The  resolution  of  Messrs.  Dickey  and  Porter  was  designed 
as  a  check  to  all  parties.  There  were  some  who  were  more 
rigid  in  tlieir  demands  than  tlie  written  law  of  the  church  re- 
([uircd,  while  there  were  others  who,  by  their  practice,  gave 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  23  T 

immistakable  signs  that  they  held  both  the  written  law  of  the 
church  and  the  law  as  established  by  the  practice  of  a  godl}' 
ancestry  in  contempt. 

Both  parties,  no  doubt,  might  be  characterized  as  extremists. 
The  one  looked  on  the  attainments  of  the  fathers  with  a  sacred 
veneration  ;  the  other  viewed  the  practices  of  their  sainted  an- 
cestors with  a  feeling  of  commingled  shame  and  disgust. 


HISTORY    OF    THE 


(CHAPTER  XV. 

RESULT  of  the  Action  of  the  Synod  in  Mason.  Matthews  and  Clarke  Case — 
Parties  Lose  Confidence  in  Each  Other — The  General  Synod  ''  Intermit  the 
Functions  of  the  Subordinate  Synods" — General  Synod  Always  Meet  at  Phila- 
delphia— The  Synods  of  the  South  and  West  Practically  Excluded — Remon- 
strances Against  the  Action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1811  by  These — Synod 
of  Scioto  Withdrew  in  1820 — Synod  of  the  Carolinas  Became  Independent  in 
1822 — Synod  of  New  York  Never  Meets — A  Majority  of  the  People  Opposed 
to  the  Course  Pursued  by  General  Synod — The  Resiilt,  had  the  Matter  been 
Submitted  to  a  Popular  Vote — Correspondence  Between  the  Synod  of  Scioto 
and  the  Synod  of  the  South — The  Condition  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church — Synod  of  the  South  Appoint  a  Fast  Day — The  Bishop-Rankin  Diffi- 
culty— Settled  to  the  Satisfaction  of  Neither  Party — Character  of  Messrs. 
Bishop  and  Rankin — The  Psalmody  and  Communion  Question  the  Real 
Cause  of  the  Difficulty  Between  Messrs.  Bishop  and  Rankin — Dr.  Mason's 
Plea— Mr.  Rankin's  Rejily — The  Downward  Tendency  of  the  General  Synod — 
The  Psalmody'  Question  Revived — Ebenezer  Clarke's  Resolutions — A  New 
Version  of  the  Psalms  Called  for  by  a  Few — The  Reformed  Dutch  Version 
Allowed — The  Union  Spirit — Negotiations  with  the  Reformed  Dutch — This 
Broken  Up  by  Similar  Negotiations  with  the  General  Assembly — A  Union 
Formed  with  the  General  Assemblj- — Basis  and  Condition  of  this  Union — 
The  Vote  on  Union — No  Union  Actuallj'  Formed — Names  of  the  Ministers 
Going  into  the  Union — The  Theological  Library  Removed  to  Princeton — Law 
Suit  for  its  Recovery — Library  Restored  in  1837. 

The  action  of  the  General  Synod  in  the  Mason,  Matthews 
and  Clarke  case  was  attended  with  the  most  disastrous  results. 
The  Associate  Eeformed  Church  not  only  became  divided  in 
opinion  on  the  communion  and  psalmody  question,  but  the  op- 
posing parties  lost  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  each  other. 
The  latitudinarian  party,  as  if  afraid  that  the  subordinate 
S^'nods  would  thwart  their  plans  and  frustrate  all  their  schemes, 
in  1810,  prevailed  upon  the  General  Synod  to  pass  an  Act  "  in- 
termitting the  functions  of  the  subordinate  Synods."  The 
passage  of  this  Act  virtually  robbed  the  subordinate  Synods  of 
all  power  and  control  in  the  church. 

AVhen  the  General  Synod  w^as  organized,  it  was  designed 
that  its  meetings  should  be,  not  annual,  but  "  every  two  or  three 
years."'     This  was  changed,  and  annual  meetino:s  ordered. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  239 

By  a  kind  of  ecclesiastical  trickery,  the  General  Synod  always 
met  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  In  those  days,  when  railroads 
and  steamboats  had  no  existence,  and  the  mode  of  travel  was 
entirely  on  horseback,  the  attendance  upon  the  meetings  of  the 
General  Synod  was  accompanied  with  no  small  expense,  great 
loss  of  time,  and  very  considerable  wear  and  tear  of  both  body 
and  mind  to  the  members  of  the  Synods  of  the  Carolinas  and 
Scioto.  In  addition  to  this  these  two  Synods  came  to  the  con- 
clusion, and  rightly  too,  that  they  had  very  little  weight  in 
staying  the  downward  tendency  of  things. 

Remonstrances  against  the  action  of  the  General  Synod  of 
1811  were  sent  up  to  its  sabsequent  meeting  by  the  Synod  of 
Scioto,  by  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  and  by  several  presbyteries 
and  single  congregations.  All  this  availed  nothing.  The  result 
was  that  on  the  27th  of  April,  1820,  the  Synod  of  Scioto  for- 
mally renounced  its  subordination  to  the  General  Synod  and 
constituted  itself  into  an  independent  Synod  under  the  name, 
''  The  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  AVest." 

In  1821,  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  asked  permission  of  the 
General  Synod  to  \vithdraw^  and  become  an  independent  Synod. 
This  was  granted,  and  on  the  1st  of  April,  1822,  it  was  consti- 
tuted under  the  name,  "  The  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
South,"  which  name  it  still  bears. 

The  withdrawal  of  these  two  Synods  left  in  connection  with 
the  General  Synod  only  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  and  the 
Synod  of  Xew  York.  The  connection  of  the  latter,  however, 
was  only  nominal.  From  the  autumn  of  1812  to  the  spring  of 
1822,  a  period  of  more  than  nine  years,  it  never  met.  The 
reason  was  because,  "the  bitter  and  personal  controversies  upon 
psalmod}'  and  communion  had  so  distracted  and  disheartened 
many  of  the  ministers,  that  they  felt  like  letting  every  thing 
outside  of  their  pastoral  charges  go  by  default."  It  was  not' 
because  they  acquiesced  in  the  action  of  the  General  S3'nod  of 
1810,  in  intermitting  the  functions  of  the  subordinate  synods. 
Against  this  action  they  remonstrated. 

That  the  reader  may  have  a  clear  and  distinct  knowledge  of 
the  results  of  the  action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1811,  it  is- 
necessary  to  o-ive  a  brief  statement  of  the.  facts. 


"240  HISTORY    OF    THE 

An  already  intimated,  the  course  pursued  by  the  General 
Synod  failed  to  give  satisfaction.  A  largo  minority  of  the 
ministers  and  a  majority  of  the  lay  members  of  the  church 
Avere  decidedly  opposed  to  the  course  which  the  General  Synod 
pursued.  Had  the  questions  been  separated  and  left  to  the 
popular  vote  of  the  denomination,  it  is  almost  certain  that 
Dr.  Mason  and  the  Rev.  J.  X.  Clarke  would  have  been  cen- 
sured ;  the  former  for  using  a  psalmody  forbidden  by  the  church, 
and  the  latter  for  practicing  a  communion  not  occasional,  but 
clearly  irregular. 

It  is  also  highly  probable  that  no  censure  would  have  been 
passed  upon  Dr.  Mason  and  Mr.  Matthews  for  holding  com- 
munion with  the  congregation  of  Dr.  Romeyn.  By  some  the 
conduct  of  these  brethren  would  not  have  been  approved  ;  but 
the  probability  is  that  even  l)y  them  the  matter  would  have 
been  overlooked. 

As  it  was,  however,  the  church  was  greatly  agitated.  The 
Synod  of  Scioto  feeling  deeply  aggrieved,  met  in  Chillicothe, 
Ohio,  on  the  17th  of  October,  1811,  and  adopted  the  following 
preamble  and  resolutions : 

Whereas,  In  consequence  of  reports  having  been  in  circulation  that  the  Rev. 
Messrs.  Dr.  Mason,  J.  M.  Matthews  and  J.  X.  Clarke,  had  joined  in  communion 
■with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  that  Dr.  Mason  having  received  an  invitation 
from  Dr.  Romeyn  to  conduct  the  public  worship  of  his  congregation,  had  con- 
formed on  that  occasion  to  the  established  order  of  worship  in  that  church, 
which  reports  liad  excited  no  small  degree  of  dissatisfaction  in  various  parts  of 
this  church  ;  And  ivhereas,  By  direction  of  General  Synod,  at  their  last  meeting, 
an  inquiry  had  been  instituted  to  ascertain  the  truth  of  these  reports,  which  it 
appeared  were  well  founded  ;  A7id  whereas,  A  resolution  was  brought  before 
Synod  condemnatory  of  the  conduct  of  these  brethren  in  the  premises,  which 
resolution  was  negatived,  thereby,  as  it  is  supposed,  justifying  and  approving 
their  conduct ;  And  whereas.  It  appears  to  this  Synod  that  instead  of  being 
passed  over  in  this  manner,  it  merited  disapprobation  ;  therefore, 

Besolved,  That  this  Synod  do  hereby  express  their  decided  disapprobation  in 
the  conduct  of  these  brethren  in  violating  the  order  of  communion  established 
in  this  church  ;  and  of  Dr.  Mason,  in  particular,  in  using  a  system  of  psalmody 
which  the  constitution  and  standards  of  the  church  not  only  do  not  recognize, 
but  condemn. 

Besolved,  That  this  Synod  direct,  as  it  hereby  does,  the  different  Presbyteries 
of  which  it  is  composed,  to  lay  before  the  General  Synod,  at  its  next  meeting, 
temperate  yet  firm  remonstrances,  against  their  decision,  in  negativing  the  reso- 
lution referred  to  above. 

Resolved,  That  a  letter  expressing  the  sentiments  of  this  Synod,  on  these  sub- 
jects, be  addressed  and  forwarded  to  Dr.  Mason. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTKRY.  241 

The  resolution  referred  to  as  being  negatived  b}^  the  General 

•  Synod  was  that  offered  1)}'  Messrs.  Henderson  and  Dick. 

On  the  next  day,  October  l-8th,  the  Synod  of  Scioto  again 
■met  and  passed  the  following  resolution : 

••  That  the  clerk  be,  as  he  hereby  is,  directed  to  forward  without  delay,  to  the 

•  clerk  or  some  other  member  of  each  of  the  other  particular  synods  of  the  Asso- 
-  ciate  Reformed  Church  a  copy  of  the  first  and  second  resolutions." 

The  Eev.  John  Steel,  clerk  of  the  Synod  of  Scioto,  sent  to  the 
Eev,  Isaac  Grier,  clerk  of  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  the  two 
resolutions  referred  to  above.  These,  together  with  an  ex- 
planatory letter  by  Mr,  Steel,  were  read  and  considered  by  the 
•Synod  of  the  Carolinas  at  its  meeting  on  the  3d  of  April,  1812, 
-lit  King's  Creek,  IS'ewberry  county,  S.  C. 

The  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  returned  an  answer  to  these  reso- 
lutions, in  which  the}'  "  express  their  concurrence  in  sentiment 
with  the  Scioto  brethren." 

The  Associate  Reformed  Church  began  at  this  time  to  pre- 
sent an  awful  spectacle  of  human  weakness  and  human  pas- 
sions. The  General  Synod  possessed  all  the  power,  and  outside 
of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  there  were  few,  either  of  the 
ministers  or  lay  members  of  the  church  but  looked  upon  it 
with  feelings  of  commingled  shame,  sorrow  and  distrust.  As 
one  among  many  evidences  of  this  fact,  it  may  be  mentioned 
that  in  1812  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  appointed  a  day  of 
fasting,  assigning  as  the  first  and  most  important  reason  for 
such  appointment,  "  the  afflictions  and  embarrassments  of  the 
church  in  general,  and  our  own  church  in  particular." 

In  1812,  a  quarrel  sprung  up  between  Messrs.  Bishop  and 
Eankin,  which,  after  being^continued  for  about  six  ^^ears,  was 
adjudicated  by  a  commission  of  the  General  Synod,  to  the  sat- 
isfaction of  neither  party. 

This  difficulty  originated  as  follows :  The  Presbytery  of 
Kentucky  appointed,  in  1812,  Messrs.  Bishop  and  Rankin  to 
prepare  a  pastoral  letter  to  the  churches  on  the  duty  of  minis- 
terial support.  The  letter  was  written  by  Mr.  Bishop,  assisted 
by  Mr.  Rankin,  and  when  presented  to  the  presbytery  passed 
without  opposition.  Such  being  the  case,  the  presbytery,  and 
not  the  committee,  became  responsible  for  whatever  senti- 
ments it  contained.     In  this  pastoral  letter,  the  tithe  law,  sup- 

n 


242  HISTORY'  OF  the: 

posed  to  be  oiiee  in  force  in  the  Old  Testament  church,  was  ad- 
vocated. This  £^ave  offense  in  some  sections,  and  especially  in 
Ebenezer  congrc^^ation,  of  which  Mr.  Bishop  was  pastor. 

In  order  to  place  the  matter  in  a  proper  light  and  restore 
peace  and  harmony  in  the  Ebenezer.  congregation,  the  presby- 
tery addressed  an  official  letter  to  the  people  of  Ebenezer,  stat- 
iugr  that  the  pastoral  letter  was  to  be  considered  as  the  produc- 
tion of  the  presbytery,  and  not  of  any  single  individual. 

At  that  time  Mr.  Bishop  was,  in  connection  with  some  other- 
clergymen,  publishing  a  religious  monthly  called  the  Evangeli- 
cal liccord  and  Western  Beview.  In  this  monthly  Mr.  Bishop 
published  the  official  letter  of  the  Kentucky  Presbytery  to  the 
Ebenezer  congregation,  and  also  defended  the  pastoral  letter. 
This  may  have  been  defensible,  but  for  some  cause  which  does 
not  clearly  appear,  he  said  some  hard  things  about  Mr.  Rankin, 
lie  also  published  in  the  same  work  an  article  entitled  "The 
Origin  of  the  Eankinites." 

The  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Bishoj)  was  calculated  to  offend 
Mr.  Rankin  and  his  friends.  This  it  did.  The  matter  came 
before  the  presbytery  for  adjudication.  Mr.  Bishop  did  not 
deny  the  charges  he  had  made  against  Mr.  Rankin.  On  the 
contrary,  he  offered  to  justify  his  conduct  by  proving  that  the- 
charges  were  true.  This  the  presbytery  refused  tooillow  him 
to  do,  on  the  ground  that  even  if  the  charges  were  true,  Mr- 
Bishop  was  censurable  for  having  published  them  to  the  world, 
instead  of  proceeding  against  Mr.  Rankin  in  accordance  with 
the  discipline  of  the  church. 

In  October,  1815,  the  Presbytery  of  Kentucky  suspended. 
Mr.  Bishop  from  the  ministry.  He  refused  to  submit,  and 
appealed  to  the  General  Synod.  In  May,  1816,  the  General 
Synod  declared  the  act  of  the  presbytery  irregular,  thereby  re- 
moving the  sentence  of  suspension,  but  directed  that  Mr.  Bishop' 
be  rebuked  by  his  presbytery  on  account  of  the  severe  charges- 
which  he  had  brought  against  Mr.  Rankin.  To  this  he  also 
refused  to  submit,  and  forwarded  reasons  for  so  acting  to  the 
General  Synod  of  1817.  A  committee  was  appointed  by  the 
Synod  to  proceed  to  Kentucky,  gather  up  all  the  facts  in  the 
case,  and  report  to  the  Synod.     This  committee  did  nothing. 

In  May,  1818,  a  commission^  consisting  of  John  M.  Mason^ 
Ebenezer  Dickey  and  John  Linn,  ministers ;  and  John  Ken- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  243 

iiedy,  Silas  E.  Weir  and  Jeremiah  Morrow,  elders,  was  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose  of  takins^  the  whole  matter  into  con- 
sideration. 

That  they  might  be  able  to  conclude  the  ailair  finally,  the 
General  Synod  conferred  upon  this  commission  full  power  to 
do  every  thing  necessary  to  bring  the  case  to  a  final  conclusion. 
Their  action  was  to  be  subject,  however,  to  review  by  next. 
General  Synod. 

In  September  the  commission  met  in  Lexington  and  pro- 
ceeded to  adjudicate  tlie  difliculty.  In  accordance  with  the- 
powers  conferred  upon  them,  Mr.  Bishop  was  made  the  prose- 
cutor and  Mr.  Rankin  the  defendant. 

Mr.  Bishop  was  first  required  to  submit  to  the  rebuke  previ- 
ously ordered  by  the  General  Synod.  Having  complied  with 
this  requirement,  he  was  then  called  upon  to  prefer  his  charges 
against  Mr.  Rankin.  This  he  did.  So  soon  as  his  testimony 
was  all  given  in,  Mr.  Rankin  asked  that  eight  days  be  allowed 
him  to  prepare  his  defense.  This  the  commission  granted; 
but  the  time  having  expired,  Mr.  Rankin  handed  in  a  paper 
declining  the  authority  of  the  commission.  The  trial  went  on, 
notwithstanding  the  absence  of  the  defendant.  The  decision 
of  the  commission  was  that  "Mr.  Bishop,  the  prosecutor, 
should  be  j:)ublicly  rebuked  for  the  publication  he  had  issued, 
and  that  Mr.  Rankin,  the  defendant,  being  convicted  of  lying 
and  slander,  be,  as  he  liereby  is,  suspended  from  the  gospel 
ministry." 

It  would  be  a  hopeless  task,  were  it  undertaken,  to  decide 
whether  this  decision  was  just  and  equitable  or  not.  ISTo  doubt 
both  Mr.  Bishop  and  Rankin  were  censurable.  Both  were 
men  of  fine  natural  abilities  and  no  mean  attainments.  Mr. — 
afterwards  Doctor — Bishop  was  a  fine  classical  scholar  and  dis- 
tinguished educator. 

Xotvvithstanding  all  this,  he  was  rash  and  impulsive,  given 
to  speak  unadvisedly,  and  frequently  dealt  in  language  which 
cut  like  a  sword.  His  piety,  so  far  as  is  known,  was  never 
called  in  question  ;  but,  withal,  he  was  disposed  to  push  his 
own  opinions  and  pursue  his  own  counsel.  In  the  autumn  of 
1802  he  came  to  America,  and  was  sent  by  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Sj'nod  to  the  Presbytery  of  Kentucky.  In  the  summer 
of  1803  he  received  a  call  from  the  united  congregations  of 
Ebenezer  and  !N^ew  Providence. 


244  HISTORY    OF    THE 

About  the  same  time  he  was  elected  to  a  professorship  in 
Transylvania  University,  at  Lexington.  When  the  time  ar- 
rived for  his  ordination  and  installation,  the  presbytery  required 
him  to  resign  liis  professorship.  This  he  refused  to  do,  and 
the  presbytery  not  only  refnsed  to  proceed  with  his  ordination 
and  installation,  but  prosecuted  and  rebuked  him  for  insubor- 
dination. The  matter  was  referred  to  the  Synod  and  the  de- 
cree of  the  presbj'tery  was  reversed,  but  it  was  not  until  June, 
1808,  that  his  ordination  and  installation  took  place. 

Of  Mr.  Rankin  it  is  difficult  to-  speak  with  certainty.  That 
he  was  the  occasion  of  much  disturbance  in  the  church  cannot 
be  denied  ;  but  of  much  of  that  disturbance  he  was  probably 
only  the  innocent  occasion.  Mr.  Rankin  came  from  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  to  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  about  the 
year  1793.  Tlie  reason  he  left  the  Presbyterian  Church  was 
the  introduction  of  AVatts'  "imitation"  of  the  Psalms  of  the 
Bible  into  the  worship  of  God  by  some  congregations  in  con- 
nection with  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Against  this  innova- 
tion he  set  himself  with  all  his  might,  but  not  being  able  to 
prevent  it,  he  withdrew,  or  rather  because  he  opposed  this  inno- 
vation he  was  suspended  by  the  Presbytery  of  Transylvania 
from  the  exercise  of  all  ministerial  functions.  To  this  sen- 
tence of  the  presbytery  he  refused  to  submit,  and  ijjade  appli- 
cation to  the  Second  Associate  Reformed  Presbytery  of  Penn- 
sylvania, and  was  by  that  presbytery  received  into  tlie  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  the  psalmody  and  communion 
question  was  the  main  factor  in  the  Bishop-Rankin  difficulty. 
Mr.  Bishop  and  Mr.  Rankin  held  antagonistic  views  on  those 
subjects. 

In  1819  Mr.  Bishop  left  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  and 
joined  the  General  Assembly  Presbyterian  Church.  This 
shows  that  he  either  had  no  conscientious  scruples  about 
psalmody  and  communion,  or  that  he  acted  contrary-  to  the 
convictions  of  his  conscience. 

In  1816  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason  published,  his  work  entitled  "A 
Plea  for  Sacramental  Communion  on  Catholic  Principles." 
The  position  taken  in  this  work  b}'  Dr.  Mason  is  far  in  ad- 
vance of  tliat  assumed  by  him  as  the  [>osition  held  by  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  when  his  case  was  before  the  Synod 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  ,  245 

in  1811.  k^o  much  was  Mr.  Rankin  o^jposed  to  the  scheme 
advocated  by  Dr.  Mason  that  he  wrote  an  answer  to  Mason's 
Plea. 

The  difhculty  between  Mr.  Bishop  and  Mr.  Rankin  was 
settled  in  a  way  tiiat  was  calcnlated  to  do  great  injury  to  the 
cause  of  Jesns  Christ.  The  appointing  of  the  commission  was 
an  unpresbytcrial  act.  Mr.  Bishop  never  brought  an^-  charges 
against  Mr.  Rankin  before  the  Presbytery  of  Kentucky.  So  far 
as  it  appears,  the  whole  matter  was  conducted  in  a  way  not 
sanctioned  bj'  the  principles  of  J.^resbyterianism. 

Mr.  Bishop  should  have  brought  charges  against  Mr.  Ran- 
kin before  the  Presbj^tery  of  Kentucky.  Had  the  Presbytery 
decided  contrary  to  his  views  of  law,  then  he  should  have  ap- 
pealed to  the  Synod  of  Scioto,  and  had  his  supposed  rights  not 
been  respected  by  the  Synod  of  Scioto,  then  he  had  the  right 
to  appeal  to  the  General  Synod  as  a  court  of  final  resort.  Un- 
fortunately, the  General  Synod  had,  in  1810,  '"intermitted  the 
functions  of  the  subordinate  synods,"  and  in  the  Bishop-Ran- 
kin  case  the  General  Synod  took  upon  itself  to  adjudicate  a 
matter  which  properly  belonged  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pres- 
byter}^ of  Kentuck}'. 

The  tendency  now  was  to  the  rapid  dissolution  of  the  Gene- 
ral Synod.  In  a  few,  and  in  only  a  few  sections  of  the  church 
there  was  a  desire  to  thrust  the  old  Scotch  version  of  the 
Ps'alms  out  of  the  church  and  introduce  a  new  version.  The 
rough  Hebrew-Scotch  version,  with  its  lines  occasionally  too 
long  or  too  short,  grated  on  the  ears  of  the  rising  generation, 
and  an  incessant  clamor  for  a  new;  version  was  raised  by  the 
dissatisfied  few. 

It  was  the  version  that  first  agitated  the  church.  This  was 
as  far  as  the  psalmody  question  ever  reached  in  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church.  So  far  as  is  remembered,  no  man  holding 
any  official  connection  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
has  ever  dared  to  advocate  the  introduction  of-hymns,  the  com- 
position of  which  is  merely  human,  into  the  worship  of  God. 
]!!^o  doubt  there  were,  at  various  periods,  a  number  of  individ- 
uals who  did  not  hold  the  hio-h  o-round  which  has  ever  been 

■^  OS 

held  by  strict  Seceders  on  this  suljject.     These  generally  sought 

connections  where  they  could  practice  in  accordance  with  their 
views. 


246  .  HISTORY    OF   THE 

Sometime  during  the  year  1810,  the  question  of  a  new  metri- 
■cal  version  of  the  Psalms  began  to  be  discussed  in  certain  As- 
sociate Reformed  circles.  Ebenezer  Clark,  an  elder  of  Argyle, 
New  York,  wrote  to  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason  a  letter  in  which  he 
stated  that  he  had  drawn  up  and  presented  to  presbytery  a 
petition  on  the  subject  of  an  improved  version  of  the  Psalms. 
In  that  letter  Mr.  Clark  states  that  "  the  presbytery  were  re- 
quested to  petition  Synod  to  furnish  the  church  with  a  metre 
version  of  the  Scripture  psalms,  hymns  and  songs  adapted  to 
the  present  condition  of  the  church  and  the  improved  state  of 
the  English  language,"  The  petition  addressed  to  the  presby- 
tery encountered  some  opposition,  but  not  to  the  extent  that 
was  feared. 

Dr.  Mason  approved  of  the  course  that  was  adopted  by  Mr. 
Clark,  and  stated  that  the  subject  had  been  before  his  mind  for 
several  years.  The  matter  came  before  the  General  Synod 
soon  after  this,  and  a  committee,  consisting  of  Drs.  Mason  and 
Gray,  and  Revs.  John  X.  Clarke,  J.  M.  Matthews  and  Alex- 
ander Proudfoot,  was  appointed  "  to  procure  an  improved  ver- 
sion of  Scriptural  psalmody,  and  to  have  the  same  in  readiness 
for  such  order  as  the  General  Synod  shall  see  meet  to  make  at 
the  next  stated  meeting.'' 

Iso  version  was  made,  and  no  good  grew  out  of  the  resolu- 
tion. The  majority  of  the  members  of  the  church  regarded 
a  new  version  of  the  Psalms  and  the  scheme  of  occasional  com- 
munion on  very  latitudinarian  principles,  as  inseparably  con- 
nected. 

In  1816  the  General  Synod  passed  an  Act  permitting  such 
congregations  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  as  might 
judge  it  for  edification,  "to  use  the  version  of  the  Book  of 
Psalms  in  the  Old  Testament  recently  prepared  for  the  use  of 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church." 

AVhether  there  were  serious  objections  to  the  Reformed 
Dutch  version  of  the  Psalms  or  not,  is  a  matter  that  need  not 
be  discussed ;  but  it  is  a  fact  that  only  a  few  Associate  Re- 
formed congregations — only  three,  perhaps — availed  themselves 
of  the  liberty  granted  them  by  the  highest  court  of  the  church, 
.and  these  only  for  a  very  short  time 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  24*7 

A  spirit  of  union  seems  early  to  have  taken  possession  of  at 
least  some  of  the  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 
In  1816,  "  a  reo-ular  and  constant  correspondence  "  was  inaugu- 
rated with  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  and  in  1820  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  by  the  General  Synod  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  to  confer  with  a  similar  committee  to  be 
appointed  by  the  General  S}' nod  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
with  a  view  to  effecting  a  union  of  the  two  denominations. 

A  basis  of  union,  consisting  of  eight  Articles,  was  drawn  up. 
This  basis  the  Reformed  Dutch  Sj'nod  overtured  to  its  classes. 
These  reported  almost  unanimously  in  its  favor. 

In  1821,  the  leaders  of  the  General  Synod  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  having  a  prospect  of  a  union  with  the  Gen- 
eral Assembl}'  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  politely  "declined, 
for  the  present,  all  further  proceedings  relative  thereto,  resting 
satisfied  with  the  continuance  of  the  established  plan  of  inter- 
course and  correspondence." 

The  General  Synod  was  now  nearing  its  final  dissolution. 
For  more  than  ten  years  this  event  had  been  regarded  by  man}^ 
in  every  section  of  the  church  as  inevitable.  As  the  hour  of 
its  dissolution  approached,  the  signs  of  the  event  became  more 
manifest. 

In  May,  1821,  the  General  Synod,  as  usual,  met  in  the  city 
■of  Philadelphia.  From  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  then  in  session  in  the  same  city,  an  overture 
was  received  by  the  General  Synod,  proposing  an  organic  union 
of  the  two  denominations. 

A  committee  of  its  members  was  appointed  b}^  each  court  to 
conduct  the  negotiations.  After  some  consultation  the  folloAv- 
ing  plan  was  agreed  upon  as  a  basis  of  union  : 

1.  The  different  presbyteries  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  shall  either 
retain  their  separate  organization,  or  be  amalgamated  with  those  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  at  their  own  choice. 

2.  The  theological  seminary  at  Princeton,  under  the  care  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  the  theological  seminary  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  shall 
be  consolidated. 

3.  The  theological  library  and  funds  belonging  to  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  shall  be  transferred  and  belong  to  the  seminary  at  Princeton. 

This  plan  of  union,  if  such  it  may  be  called,  was  overtured, 
or  pretended  to  be  overtured,  to  the  presbyteries. 


248  HISTORY    OF    THE 

On  the  15tli  of  May,  1822,  the  General  Synod  again  met  in- 
Philadelphia.  Twenty-two  delegates  had  been  comniissioned, 
but  only  sixteen  attended — six  from  the  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia ;  four  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York ;  three  from, 
the  Presbytery  of  Saratoga  ;  and  three  from  the  Presbytery  of 
Big  Spring.  The  Presbyter}^  of  AVashington  was  without  a 
representative,  and  one  delegate  was  absent  from  the  Presby- 
tery of  Big  Spring,  and  another  from  the  Presbytery  of  Sara- 
toga. 

When  the  overture  in  reference  to  the  projjosed  union  Avith 
the  Presbyterian  Church  came  up,  it  was  found  that  the  Pres- 
byteries of  Saratoga  and  Washington  Avere,  without  a  dissent- 
ing vote,  against  it,  and  in  the  Presbytery  of  Big  Spring,  only 
a  very  small  minority  were  in  favor  of  it.  The  only  Presby- 
teries in  favor  of  it  were  those  of  ]S"ew  York  and  Philadelphia,, 
and  in  each  of  these  there  was  a  respectable  minority  opposed 
to  it. 

On  strict  Presbyterian  principles,  the  overture  was  rejected. 
Of  the  five  presbyteries  at  that  time  in  connection  with  the 
General  Synod,  three  voted  against  the  overture,  two  unani- 
mously ;  one  with  a  small  minority  in  favor  of  it,  and  not  a 
single  presbyter}^  unanimously  in  favor  of  it.  In  accordance 
with  a  well-established  principle  of  Presbyterian  church  gov- 
ernment, the  overture  was  no  longer  before  the  General  Synod. 
That  court,  however,  took  a  different  view  of  the  matter. 

In  1810,  it  had,  by  the  passage  of  an  Act,  intermitted  the 
functions  of  the  subordinate  Synods,  and  now 'it  proceeded  to 
ignore  the  prerogatives  and  usurp  the  functions  of  the  presby- 
teries. 

The  matter  was  discussed  for  four  days,  and  on  Tuesday,  the 
21st  of  May  it  was 

Besolved,  That  this  Synod  approve,  and  hereby  do  ratify  the  plan  of  union 
between  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  proposed  by  commissioners  from  said  churches. 

Seven  voted  in  favor  of  the  above  resolution  ;  five  voted 
against  it,  and  four  were  silent.  Those  who  voted  in  the  af- 
firmative were  James  Laurie,  the  moderator ;  Ebenezer  Dickey 
and  John  M.  Duncan,  ministers ;  Joseph  is'ourse,  James  Mar- 
tin, Robert  Patterson  and  John  Forsyth,  elders.  Those  voting 
in  the  negative  were  Robert  Forrest,  Thomas  Smith,  James. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  249" 

Otterson, ministers  ;  James  LeiFerz  and  James  McCullodi,  elders. 
Those  who  did  not  vote  were  William  AVert  Phillips,  Robert 
B.  E.  ]\IcLeod  and  John  Linn,  ministers ;  and  elder  Robert 
Blake. 

Of  the  seven  who  voted  in  the  affirmative,  all  were  in  con- 
nection with  the  Presbyteiy  of  Philadelphia,  except  elder  John 
Forsyth. 

Thomas  Smith  claimed  that  seven  was  not  a  majority  of  six- 
teen. The  moderator  ruled  that  silent  votes  were  to  be  counted 
with  the  majority,  and  that  the  resolution  was  adopted.  Those 
who  voted  in  the  negative  protested  against  his  decision,  be- 
cause it  was  in  manifest  opposition  to  the  voice  of  the  church. 

Of  the  six  delegates  who  were  absent,  it  was  known  that  five 
were  opposed  to  the  proposed  union.  Objections  and  protests 
availed  nothing.  The  few  were  determined  to  rule.  Tlie  union 
must  be  formed,  was  their  motto,  no  matter  what  the  presby- 
teries or  single  individuals  said  to  the  contrary. 

That  this  union  of  1822  was  not  a  union  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  and  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  evident, 
from  the  fact  that  onl^^  eleven  ministers,  and  perhaps  about  the 
same  number  of  pastoral  charo-es  acceded  to  it.  The  names  of 
those  ministers  who  went  into  the  Presbyterian  Church  under 
the  cloak  of  that  farcical  transaction  were  Ebenezer  Dickey, 
John  ]\I.  Duncan,  George  Junkiu,  James  Laurie,  Robert  Mc- 
Carter,  Charles  G.  McLean,  Robert  B,  E.  McLeod,  John  ]\L 
Mason,  Ebenezer  K.  ^Maxwell,  John  Mulligan  and  William 
Wert  Phillips. 

All  of  these  were  men  of  more  than  ordinary  powers,  and 
mau}^  of  them  men  of  massive  intellects.  They  were  also  men 
of  exemplary  piety.  It  is,  however,  almost  certain  that  they 
marred  their  happiness,  and  to  some  extent  injured  their  influ- 
ence by  so  inconsiderately  and  rashly  forming  a  union  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  To  say  that  they  believed  that  by  that 
act  they  expressed  the  desires  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
people,  is  to  charge  them  with  gross  and  willful  ignorance  ;  and 
to  say  that  they  knew  they  were  acting  in  opposition  to  the- 
desires  of  the  great  body  of  the  church  to  which  they  belonged, 
is  to  place  them  before  the  world  in  the  unenviable  attitude  of 
self-constituted  petty  tyrants. 


250  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  moderator  having  announced  that  the  plan  of  union  was 
adopted,  the  General  Synod  began  to  make  arrangements  for 
its  own  extinction.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  transfer 
the  theological  library  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Semi- 
nary from  'New  York  to  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  Mr.  J.  Ar- 
buckle,  clerk  of  the  Sj'nod,  and  pastor-elect  of  Spruce  Street 
Church,  Philadelphia,  a  member  of  this  committee,  asked  leave 
of  absence  that  he  might  go  at  once  to  New  York  for  the  pur- 
pose of  removing  the  library  before  any  legal  obstacles  might 
be  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  transfer. 

This  indicated  that  they  expected  to  encounter  opposition, 
because  they  felt,  no  doubt,  that  they  had  acted  in  bad  faith. 

On  Thursday,  the  23d,  they  met  and  drew  up  a  pastoral  let- 
ter ex[»lanatory  of  their  action.  The  clerk  was  ordered  to  de- 
posit all  the  minutes  and  documents  belonging  to  the  General 
Synod  wuth  the  session  of  the  Spruce  Street  congregation. 

The  General  Assembl}^  having  been  officially  informed  of 
their  action,  invited  them  to  seats  in  the  Assembly  as  constit- 
uent members. 

The  closing  moment  of  the  General  Synod  had  now  arrived. 
It  has  been  customary,  in  all  branches  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, to  conclude  the  sessions  of  all  ecclesiastical  courts  by 
singing  the  133d  Psalm. 

Had  the  union  so  recently  formed  been  entirely  agreeable  to 
all  parties,  this  would  have  been  exceedingly  appropriate ;  but 
for  some  reason  this  was  not  done.  In  its  place  they  very  appro- 
priatel}^  sung  the  130th  Psalm,  and  finally  adjourned.  Two 
ministers,  McLeod  ahd  Duncan,  and  two  elders,  Nourse  and 
Patterson,  took  their  seats  in  the  General  Assembly.  The  rest, 
tired  and  sad,  all  went  home,  and  many  of  them  sank  into  ob- 
scurity, or  became  notorious.  Thus,  after  a  stormy  existence 
of  eighteen  years,  perished  the  General  Synod  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  and  with  it  the  subordinate  Synod  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

The  Synod  of  Scioto  having,  on  the  ^7th  of  April,  1820, 
dissolved  and  reconstituted,  as  an  indepen  ^nt  Synod,  and  the 
Synod  of  the  Carolinas  having,  in  accorda  -^.e  with  jjermission 
granted  by  the  General  Synod,  become  independent,  on  the  1st 
of  April,  1822,  the  Synod  of  New  York  alone  remained  to  as- 
sert the  rio-hts  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  251 

A  pro  re  nata  meeting  of  the  S^'nod  of  Xew  York  was  or- 
dered by  its  last  moderator,  the  Rev.  Robert  Proudfoot,  at 
Galway,  on  the  13th  of  February,  1822. 

The  Presbyteries  of  Saratoga  and  Washington  were  repre- 
sented by  both  ministers  and  elders,  while  Mr.  Daniel  Farring- 
ton  was  the  only  representative  from  the  Presbj'tery  of  JSTew 
York.  At  this  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Xew  York,  the  fol- 
lowing resolutions  were  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Synod,  the  union  pi-oposed  with  the 
General  Assemblj'  is  inexpedient,  and  calcuhited  to  di;*tui-b  the  peace  of  our 
churches. 

Resolved,  That  this  Synod  will  maintain  its  existence,  in  its  present  form, 
whatever  be  the  decision  of  the  General  Synod  upon  the  contemplated  union. 

With  the  exception  of  one  dissenting  vote — that  of  the  Rev. 
Ebenezer  Iv.  Maxwell — these  resolutions  were  unanimously 
adopted.  The  S^'nod  having  passed  these  resolutions,  ad- 
journe.d,  to  meet  at  Xewburgh,  on  the  13th  of  September, 
1822.  ' 

During  the  interval,  the  union  was  formed.  The  Synod  of 
Xew  York,  however,  met  at  the  appointed  time,  and  was 
opened  with  a  sermon  by  the  Rev.  James  Scriingeour.  There 
were  present  nineteen  members,  and  three  were  absent.  It  was 
found  that  there  still  remained  thirteen  ministers  and  about 
tw^enty-five  congregations  that  had  not  and  did  not  design  go- 
ing into  the  union. 

At  this  meeting  of  the  Synod,  a  memorial  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  reference  to  restoring 
the  library  and  funds  transferred  to  Princeton,  by  Act  of  the 
General  Synod,  was  prepared.  This  memorial  was  presented  to 
the  General  Assembl}-  in  1823,  by  Alexander  Proudfoot  and 
Robert  Forrest.  It  was,  however,  for  prudential  reasons,  with- 
<lrawn. 

For  about  seven  years  afterwards,  no  formal  effort  was  made 
to  recover  this  property.  In  1830,  another  memorial  was  pre- 
pared and  placed  iv  the'  hands  of  the  Rev.  Joseph  McCarrell 
and  Mr.  John  For&  .h,  to  be  presented  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly at  its  next  met  i,ng. 

In  ^lay,  1831,  the  commissioners — ]\IcCarrell  and  Forsyth — 
appeared  before  the  General  Assembly  and  presented  the  memo- 
riah     The  matter  was  referred  by  the  Assembly  to  a  special 


252  HISTORY    OF    THE 

committee,  which  brought  in  an  adverse  report.  This  repprt,. 
liowever,  was  not  adopted  by  the  Assembl}^  but  referred,  to- 
gether with  tlie  memorial,  to  the  trustees  of  the  theological 
seminary  at  Princeton. 

A  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees  and  commissioners  was 
held  in  April,  18-32  ;  but  the  trustees  declined  to  decide  the 
matter,  and  referred  it  back  to  the  Assembly,  advising  that  the 
memorial  be  rejected. 

When  the  question  came  up  before  the  Assembly,  Dr.  Mc- 
Carrell  desired  to  be  heard.  This  was  refused.  The  commis- 
sioners desired  to  present  a  written  argument.  This  Avas  also 
refused. 

All  friendly  negotiations  were  now  barred,  and  as  a  last,  and 
only  resort,  suit  was  commenced  in  the  court  of  chancery,  in 
the  State  of  Kew  Jersey.  Here  the  matter  lay  until  July^. 
1837,  when  Chancellor  Philemon  Dickerson  made  a  decree  in 
favor  of  the  complainants.  By  this  decree,  the  board  of  trus- 
tees of  the  theological  seminary  at  Princeton  were  necessitated 
to  return  to  the  Synod  of  'Sew  York,  the  legal  heir  of  the- 
General  Synod,  a  library  of  about  twenty-five  hundred  vol- 
umes, and  two  thousand  dollars  in  money. 

In  1837,  the  Synod  of  the  AVest  having  spread  over  an  ex- 
tensive territor}',  was  divided  into  two  synods.  The  one  Avas 
denominated  the  First  Associate  Eefornied  Synod  of  the  West, 
and  the  other  the  Second  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
West.  At  the  same  time  a  General  Synod  was  organized.  In 
1852,  the  Second  S^Miod  of  the  West  was  divided,  and  all  the- 
territory  west  of  the  State  of  Indiana  erected  into  a  synod 
called  the  Synod  of  Illinois. 

In  1855,  these  three  synods  and  the  Synod  of  Xew  York 
united  upon  the  simple  basis  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  as  adopted  in  1799.  On  the  26th  of 
May,  1858,  these  four  synods,  consisting  of  two  hundred  and 
forty  ministers  and  probationers,  and  thirty-one  thousand  two 
hundred  and  eighty -four  communicants,  united  with  the  Asso- 
ciate Synod,  thus  forming  the  United  Presbyterian  CiiuRcii. 
OF  North  America.  * 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  253 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  UNITED  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  Its  Organization  The  Time  and 
Place  of  the  Organization — Strength  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church — • 
Present  Strength — Number  of  Presbyteries,  Synods,  Families,  Communicants, 
Ministers  and  the  Territory  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church — Foreign 
Missions — Basis  of  Union — Doctrines  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church — • 
Number  of  Psalm-singing  Churches  in  America — All  Divided. 

Without  some  account  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church, 
our  knowledge  of  the  history  and  growth  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Presb^^terian  Churches  in  America  would  be  imperfect. 
The  United  Presbyterian  Church  of  North  America  is  the  re- 
sult of  a  union  formed  between  the  Associate  Reformed  and 
the  Associate  Presbyterian  Churches.  This  union  was  formally 
effected  in  the  City  Hall  of  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  on  tlie  26th  of  May, 
1858. 

The  union  was  harmonious  so  far  as  was  possible.  The 
great  body  of  both  denominations  heartily  entered  into  it.  A 
few  congregations  and  ministers  in  connection  with  each  of  the 
denominations  did  not,  however,  acquiesce  with  the  majority. 
Some  of  these  sought  connection  with  other  Christian  denomi- 
nations, a  few  afterward  went  into  the  Union  Church,  and 
others  continued  to  perpetuate  the  original  organizations. 

The  United  Presbyterian  Church  is  by  far  the  largest  and 
most  influential  of  all  those  denominations  in  America  which 
trace  their  ecclesiastical  organizations  back  to  the  Erslcines,  or 
to  McMillan  and  Nairn,  In  connection  with  the  United  Presbyte- 
rian Church  there  were, in  1858,  fifty-four  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  eighty-nine  comraunicants  ;  thirty-one  thousand  three 
hundred  and  ninety-eight  families  ;  four  hundred  and  nineteen 
ministers ;  sixty-five  probationers,  and  about  fort}^  students  of 
theology.  In  connection  with  the  denomination  there  were 
five  synods  and  forty-nine  presbyteries. 

The  growth  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  has  been 
steady.  At  present,  (1881)  there  are  in  connection  with  it  nine 
synods ;  sixty-one  presbyteries  ;  seven  hundred  and  four  or- 
dained ministers;  forty-seven  licentiates,   and   sixty-five   stu- 


254  HISTORY    OF    THE 

dents  of  theology.  The  membership,  so  far  as  reported,  was, 
in  1881,  eighty-two  thousand  nine  hundred  and  thirty-seven. 

The  United  Presbyterian  Church  has  two  theological  semi- 
naries— one  at  Xenia,  Ohio,  and  tlie  other  at  Allegheny,  Pa. 
In  addition  to  this,  it  controls  live  colleges. 

The  territor}^  occupied  by  the  United  Presbyterian  Church 
is  very  .jsxtensive,  stretching  from  Boston  to  San  Francisco.  In 
addition  to  its  labors  in  the  home  field,  it  is  extensively  en- 
gaged in  foreign  missionary  efforts.  It  has  in  its  connection  a 
presbytery  of  fourteen  members  in  Egypt.  In  connection  Avith 
this  presbytery  there  are  more  than  one  thousand  communi- 
cants. It  has  also  a  presbs^tery  in  India,  in  connection  with 
which  there  are  seven  members.  The  success  of  the  United 
Presbyterian  Church,  in  its  missionary  labors  among  the 
heathen,  has  been  very  great. 

In  forming  the  United  Presbyterian  Church,  neither  the  As- 
sociate nor  the  Associate  Reformed  Churches  adopted  any  new 
doctrine  or  practice,  or  gave  up  any  old  doctrines  or  practices. 
There  w^as  a  basis  of  union,  a  statement  of  difterences  and 
points  of  agreement ;  but  at  last  they  were  and  always  had 
been  one  except  in  name.  For  more  than  three  quarters  of  a 
century  they  had  lived  as  separate  organizations,  believing  and 
practicing  the  same  thing.  The  Associate  Reformed  Church 
adopted  the  "V\"estminster  Confession  of  Faith  after  having 
eliminated  Erastianisra  from  portions  of  certain  chapters.  The- 
Associates  adopted  the  same  Confession  of  Faith  entire  and  un- 
changed, just  as  it  was  adopted  by  the  Church  of  Scotland  in 
1647 ;  but  they  emitted  testimonies,  in  which  they  explained 
away,  as  they  thought,  its  Erastian  features.  Both  sung,,  in 
private  around  the  fireside,  and  in  the  great  congregation, 
nothing  but  the  majestic  old  Scotch  version  of  the  Psalms.  As 
far  as  it  were  possible  they  were  one.  Certainly  they  did  not 
difter  on  any  doctrine  essential  to  salvation.  Yet  for  seventy- 
six  years  they  lived  separately  and  not  always  on  very  good 
terms.  The  doctrines  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  are 
those  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  The 
form  of  church  government  is  that  laid  down  in  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  and  its  directory  for  worship  is  of 
the  same  origin.  Adam  Gib  could  have  adopted  it.  Ebenezer 
Erskine  could  have  adopted  it,  and  so  could  Richard  Cameron 
and  Donald  Cars-ill. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  255 

The  wonder  is  not  that  the  union  forming  the  United  Pres- 
byterian Church  was  eft'ected  in  1858,  but  that  it  was  not  ef- 
fected sooner. 

It  is  painful  to  think  that  the  psahii -singing  churches  are  so 
divided.  In  the  two  branches  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church  in  America  there  are  about  two  hundred  ordained 
ministers  and  nearly  twenty  thousand  communicants.  In 
America  there  are  more  than  twelve  hundred  psalm-singing 
congregations,  with  a  baptized  membership  of  more  than  five 
hundred  thousand,  and  fully  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
communicants.  To  these  about  one  thousand  ministers  are 
preaching  the  gospel.  Unfortunately,  they  are  not  united — at 
least  organically  united.  That  they  are  interested  in  each 
other's  welfare  no  one  will  deny  ;  but  still  they  are  divided. 
That  they  disagree  on  minor  points  will  be  admitted.  Abso- 
lute harmony  exists  only  in  heaven.  In  matters  purely  re- 
ligious, Associates,  Reformed  Presbyterians,  Associate  Re- 
formed Presbyterians  and  United  Presbyterians  never  have 
difi'ered.  They  are,  to-day,  one  in  doctrine,  one  in  form  of 
church  government,  one  in  worship,  and  one  in  everything  but 
— shall  we  say — politics  ;  and  this,  and  this  alone  divides  them  ! . 


256  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CUArTER  XVII. 

^SYNOD  OF  THE  CAR(JLINAS— Present  Territory  —Former  Limits— The  Grant 
of  Charles  II.  in  1003— Territory  Visited  by  Cabot,  1497~Claimed  by  the  Eng- 
lish, Si^iiniards  and  French — Spanish  Attempt  a  Settlement  in  1525 — Admi- 
ral Coligny's  Grant  in  15()2 — Rebault  Built  Fort  Carolina — Fort  Carolina 
Destroyed  by  the  Spaniards — Carolina  Became  the  Property  of  the  King  in 
1719 — Divided  into  North  and  South  Carolina  in  1729 — Georgia  Settled  in 
1733— North  Carolina,  in  1653 — South  Carolina,  in  1670 — State  of  Things  in 
England  at  That  Time — Liberty  of  Conscience  Granted  by  the  Charters — 
Design  Was  to  Establish  Prelacy — Was  Legally  Established — Covenanters 
Banished  from  Scotland  to  America— Some  Came  to  Carolina — Their  Prin- 
cipal Settlements — William  Martin's  Field  of  Labor — Petitions  Sent  from 
Carolina  to  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  in  1760  Proudfoot, 
Mason,  Martin.  Rodgers.  Patten  and  Clark  Sent  to  the  Societies  in  Carolina 
—Martin  Received  a  Call  from  Fourth  Creek,  in  1774— The  Associate  Minis- 
ters from  1782  to  1799— The  Rev.  Thomas  Clark  Comes  South  in  1782— 
Returned  North  in  1783 — The  Rev.  John  Jamieson  Comes  South — Places  of 
Preaching— Dr.  Clark  Returned  to  the  South,  and  in  1786  Became  Pastor  of 
Cedar  Spring  and  Long  Cane— John  Boyse  Began  to  Preach  at  Coddle 
Creek,  Gilead,  Prosperity  and  Hopewell,  in  1788— The  Covenanters  Visited 
by  James  Reid  in  1790 — McGarrah  and  King  Come  to  South  Carolina — Don- 
nelly Licensed  and  Ordained — Covenanters  Emigrate  on  Account  of  Slavery 
— Brick  Church  Grave-yard. 

The  Associate  Reformed  S\mod  of  the  South,  at  present,  is 
spread  over  Virginia,  ISTorth  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia, 
Alabama,  Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Arkan- 
sas and  Texas.  Originally  it  embraced  only  the  two  Carolinas 
and  Georgia,  and  was  appropriately  named  Synod  of  the  Car- 
olinas. 

It  is  impossible  to  say,  with  absolutely  certainty,  when  set- 
tlements were  first  made  in  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  by  dis- 
senters from  the  Church  of  Scotland.  A  number  of  circum- 
stances at  the  time  conspired  to  consign  such  an  event  to  obliv- 
ion. 

All  that  vast  territory  between  the  thirty-first  and  thirty - 
sixth  parallels  of  north  latitude  and  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
oceans,  was,  in  1663,  granted  to  Edward,  Earl  of  Clarendon; 
George,  Duke  of  Albemarle  ;  William,  Earl  of  Craven  ;  John, 
Lord  Berkley  ;  Anthony,  Lord  Ashley  ;  Sir  George  Carteret ; 
;Sir  John  Colleton  ;  and  Sir  AVilliam  Berkley. 


ASSOCIATE    rRESB"i'TERY.  25Y 

Tlie  discovery  of  tlie  territoiy  whicli  is  now  embraced  by 
the  two  Oarolinas  is  lono;  anterior  to  the  o-rantino-  of  this  char- 
ter.  Its  first  discovery  by  Europeans  was  by  Sebastian  Cabot, 
in  1497.  It  was  claimed  by  the  English,  by  the  Spaniards 
and  by  the  French.  The  English  knew  it  by  the  names  of  A"ir- 
ginia  and  Carolina ;  the  Spaniards  called  it  Florida  ;  and  b}' 
the  French  it  was  sometimes  called  Florida,  and  sometimes 
i^ew  France. 

In  1520  Vasques  de  Ayllon,  sailing  from  St.  Domingo,  ex- 
plored the  coast  of  South  Carolina,  and  in  1525,  under  a  com- 
mission of  Charles  v.,  lie  attempted  to  make  a  settlement  on  the 
south-western  coast.  Having,  on  his  first  visit,  plundered  the 
■country  and  kidnapped  man}'  of  the  unsuspecting  natives, 
■Avhom  he  reduced  to  slavery,  he  was  overtaken  by  the  retribu- 
tive justice  of  God,  and  his  attempt  to  plant  a  colony  in  South 
■Carolina  completely  frustrated.  In  1562,  Admiral  Colign}"  ob- 
tained a  commission  from  Charles  IX.,  of  France,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  settling  a  colony  of  Protestants  in  America.  The  ex- 
pedition was  entrusted  to  John  Ribault.  On  the  2Tth  of  May, 
his  ships  anchored  at  the  opening  of  the  ba}',  to  which  he  gave 
the  name  of  Port  Ro3'al.  Having  explored  the  country,  he 
landed,  and  at  a  point  not  far  from  the  site  of  the  present  town 
■of  Beaufort,  South  Carolina,  he  built  a  fort,  which  in  honor  of 
the  King,  he  named  Caroline.  From  this  fort,  the  country, 
which,  by  the  aborigines  was  called  Chiekola,  received  the 
■^name  Carolina. 

Fort  Caroline  was  destroyed,  and  those  in  it  cruelly  mur- 
dered by  the  Spaniards  from  St.  Augustine,  in  1565.  After 
this  event,  for  a  period  of  nearly  one  hundred  years,  scarcely 
an  effort  was  made  by  any  European  power  to  settle  the  terri- 
tory. 

The  extensive  tract  of  country  granted  by  Charles  11. ,  to 
eight  noblemen,  in  1719,  passed  out  of  their  possession  into 
the  hands  of  the  King  of  England.  In  1729  an  official  order 
w^as  given  for  the  division  of  the  territorj-,  but  the  separation 
was  not  actually  effected  until  1732.  Since  that  time  one  part 
has  borne  the  name  of  Xorth  Carolina,  and  the  other  that  of 
South  Carolina. 


18 


258  HISTORY    OF    THE 

In  1732  that  portion  of  South  Carolina  west  of  the  Savan- 
nah River  wa^.,  by  George  II.,  cut  ott'  an<l  given  to  another- 
compan}',  tliat  a  home  might  be  provided  for  his  "  poor  sub- 
jects, who,  from  misfortune  and  want  of  employment,  had 
been  reduced  to  great  necessity."  In  honor  of  George  II.  it 
was  called  Georgia.  Its  settlement  was  begun  in  lT-^>3,  under 
the  direction  of  General  James  Oglethorpe. 

The  settlement  of  that  portion  of  the  territory  which  is  now 
called  North  Carolina,  was  begun  ten  years  before  the  grant- 
ing of  the  charter,  in  1663.  Previous  to  1653,  the  tract  of 
country  between  the  Eoanoke  and  Chowan  had  been  a  place  of 
refuge  for  the  persecuted  (Quakers.  Here,  in  1653,  Roger 
Greene  and  a  colony  of  Virginians  settled.  In  April,  1670,. 
the  first  permanent  settlement  of  South  Carolina,  by  Europeans 
was  begun. 

This  was  the  period  when  persecution  was  raging  in  Scot- 
land. Charles  II.  was  restored  in  1660  and  died  in  1685.  He 
was  succeeded  by  James  II.  In  1688,  James  was  driven  from 
the  throne  of  England,  and  the  world  was  delivered  from  the 
ill-fated  House  of  the  Stuarts. 

During  all  this  long  period  of  twenty-eight  years,  a  cloud  of" 
gloomy  darkness  hung  over  the  Church  of  Scotland.     It  was 
a  reign  of  terror.     Charles  attempted  to  establish  prelacy  in 
Scotland,  and  James  undertook  to  revive  and  establish  papacy 
in  England,  Ireland  and  Scotland. 

Every  effort  which  human  ingenuity  could  contrive,  and 
diabolical  malice  plan,  was  resorted  to,  that  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Scotland  might  be  subdued,  humbled,  corrupted  and 
blotted  out  of  existence. 

Strange  as  it  ma}'-  appear,  Charles  II.,  while  persecuting 
God's  people  at  home,  granted  a  charter  to  eight  noblemen, 
who,  in  the  language  of  the  charter,  were  "  excited  with  a 
laudable  and  pious  zeal  for  the  piopagation  of  the  Christian 
faith,'"'  to  plant  a  colony  in  the  wilds  of  America.  This  act 
was  a  glaring  contradiction  of  the  whole  course  of  his  life. 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  it  was  the  design  of 
Charles  II.  and  those  who  obtained  from  him  the  charter  to 
plant  a  colony  in  Carolina,  to  establish  in  that  colony  the 
Church  of  England.  This  was  actually  done,  and  the  Church 
of  England  continued  to  be  the  legally  established  church  of 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  259 

both  the  Carolinas  until  the  surrender  of  Cornwallis  at  York- 
town,  October  19,  1781,  set  the  American  people  free  from  po- 
litical and  ecclesiastical  hierarchies.  Notwithstanding  this 
fact,  both  the  first  and  the  second  charter,  and  also  the  Funda- 
mental Constitutions,  drawn  up  by  the  celebrated  John'Locke, 
granted,  in  a  limited  sense,  the  right  to  dissenters  from  the 
Church  of  England  to  worship  God  in  accordance  with  the 
dictates  of  their  own  consciences. 

Such  being  the  case,  Carolina,  at  a  very  early  period,  became 
a  place  of  refuge  for  those  who,  in  various  portions  of  the  Old 
World,  were  persecuted  on  account  of  their  religious  belief  and 
practice. 

The  first  settlement  made  in  South  Carolina  under  the  char- 
ter granted  by  Charles  11.  ante-dates  the  battle  of  Bothwell 
Bridge  but  nine  years.  That  battle  marks  the  beginning  of 
the  separate  existence  of  the  strict  Presbyterians  or  Covenant- 
ers. Soon  afterwards  some  of  the  Covenanters  were  banished 
to  Jamaica  and  some  to  Carolina.  A  number  of  those  ban- 
ished to  Jamaica,  in  a  few  years  afterwards,  made  their  way  to 
Carolina.  Some  of  them,  prior  to  the  year  1700,  settled  in  the 
region  of  country  in  which  the  city  of  Savannah  now  stands. 
Some  settled  near  Augusta,  Georgia,  and  some  of  them  found 
homes  in  the  city  of  Charleston.  These,  in  each  succeeding 
year,  were  joined  by  emigrants  from  Scotland  and  Ireland.  So 
that  many  years  prior  to  the  Revolutionary  War,  there  were  a 
few  Covenanters  in  every  settlement  in  the  State  of  South  Car- 
olina, and  in  many  of  .those  in  Xorth  Carolina.  The  causes 
which  led  them  to  dissent  from  the  Chyrcli  of  Scotland  having 
scarcely  an  existence  in  the  Carolinas,  their  offspring,  in  many 
instances,  sought  connection  w'ith  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
About  the  year  1750  their  numbers,  compared  with  the  State 
population,  became  considerable  in  a  few  of  the  upper  counties 
of  South  Carolina,  and  in  the  counties  of  Orange  and  Rowan, 
in  North  Carolina.  They  organized  themselves  into  societies, 
and  assembling  too;ether  on  the  Sabbath,  read  the  Bible,  cate- 
ohised  the  children,  and,  in  America  as  they  had  done  in  Scot- 
land, perpetuated  their  existence  without  the  help  of  preachers 
or  presbyteries. 

Large  numbers  of  Covenanters  began  to  arrive  in  the  coun- 
try  about  the  year  1770.     In  1772,  Rev.  William  Martin  came 


'2<>0  HISTORY    OF    THE 

to  America  and  besjaii  to  preacli  to  these  scattered  societies. 
Jlis  iield  of  labor  Avas  very  great,  extending  from  Louisville, 
Georgia,  on  the  south,  to  Statesville,  Xorth  Carolina,  on  the 
north.  In  all  the  intervening  territor}^  there  were  a  few  Cov- 
enanter societies.  In  Georgia  there  were  two,  probably  three ; 
in  South  Carolina,  perhaps  as  many  as  ten;  and  in  Xorth  Car- 
olina two — probably  more. 

It  is  probable  that  prior  to  tiie  arrival  of  Mr.  Martin  the 
Covenanters  had  onl}'  a  few  houses  of  worship  in  the  South. 
In  some  cases  they  were  joint  owners  with  the  Presbyterians 
and  Associates  in  houses  of  worship. 

The  early  history  of  both  the  Associate  and  Covenanter  con- 
gregations in  the  South  is  involved  in  o-reat  obscurity.  One 
reason  which  may  be  assigned  for  this  is  the  fact  that  in  the 
early  ecclesiastical  histories  of  the  South,  these  two  denomina- 
tions are  either  ignored,or  classed  with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
In  none  of  the  secular  histories  of  either  of  the  Carolinas,  writ- 
ten before  the  Revolutionary  war,  or  for  some  years  afterward, 
is  there  any  mention  made  of  the  Associate  or  Reformed  Pres- 
byterian Churches.  If  alluded  to  at  all,  it  is  under  the  general 
head  of  Presbyterians.  Another  reason  why  so  little  is  known 
about  the  early  history  of  these  two  branches  of  the  cliurch  in 
the  South,  is  that  for  a  long  period  they  had  no  settled  pastors 
and  no  church  courts.  Previous  to  the  Revolutionary  war,  so 
far  as  is  positively  known,  there  was  no  regularly-settled  pas- 
tor in  any  of  the  Covenanter  or  Associate  congregations,  in 
either  of  the  Carolinas  or  Georgia.  There  were,  however,  in 
the  South  several  Covenanter  and  Associate  ministers.  "Wil- 
liam Martin,  whose  name  was  once  familiar  to  every  man, 
woman  and  child  in  the  upper  part  of  South  Carolina,  had  his 
home  on  Rocky  Creek,  Chester  county.  South  Carolina.  John 
Renwick  settled  in  K'ewberry  county.  South  Carolina,  in  1770. 
Thomas  Beattie  preached  to  the  societies  in  Georgia,  during  the 
3'ear  177-4:.  William  Ronaldson  preached  in  Abbeville  countj-. 
South  Carolina,  and  in  what  are  now  Jelferson  and  Burke 
counties,  Georgia,  until  1780.  When  he  came  to  America  is 
unknown.  JSTone  of  these,  however,  were  regularly  installed 
pastors  of  any  of  the  churches  to  which  they  ministered,  nor 
were  they  organized  into  a  presbyter}'. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  261 

About  tlie  year  17G0,  perhaps  before  this  time,  a  petition  was 
sent  by  some  persons  in  Carolina  to  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Pennsylvania  "  for  a  supply  of  sermon."  Who  these  peti- 
tioners were,  or  in  which  of  the  Carolinas  they  resided,  even 
tradition  does  not  inform  us.  There  are  several  circumstances 
which  make  it  jirobable  that  some  of  them  lived  in  North  Caro- 
lina, and  some  in  South  Carolina,  and  that  they  were  scattered 
over  the  reo^ion  of  country  extending  from  Long  Cane,  in  Abbe- 
ville county,  South  Carolina,  to  points  north  of  Statesville, 
Korth  Carolina.  There  were,  however,  but  few  of  them  in 
any  particular  locality.  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  some 
of  the  Covenanters  joined  with  them  in  this  petition.  It  is  a 
fact  that  in  Scotland,  and  especially  in  America,  at  this  time, 
or  rather  a  fev/  years  previous  to  this  time,  the  Covenanters 
cherished  a  very  fraternal  feeling  towards  the  Seceders. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, on  the  12th  of  October,  1762,  "there  was  laid  before 
them  a  petition  from  llawfields,  North  Carolina."  This  is 
definite,  in  that  it  mentions  a  particular  locality  ;  but  it  is  very 
indefinite,  since  "llawfields"  is  the  name  not  of  a  particular 
place,  but  of  a  region  of  country  the  bounds  of  which  were 
never  accurately  defined.  The  llawfields  took  their  name  from 
the  abundance  of  hawthorns  which  grew  in  the  region.  For 
the  same  reason  the  stream  which  flows  through  the  region  is 
call  Haw  River.  Tradition  has  handed  down  the  aboriginal 
name  of  the  river  and  the  region  through  which  it  flows,  as 
Saxapahaii\  though  it  is  also  claimed  by  some  writers  that  the 
Indians  applied  the  same  name  to  Cape  Fear  River,  of  which 
the  Haw  is  an  affluent.  The  llawfields  are  in  what  was  for- 
merly Orange  county,  but  now  Alamance.  All  that  we  cer- 
tainly know  is,  that  this  petition  of  October,  1702,  to  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  came  from  persons  living 
in  what  is  now  Alamance  county.  North  Carolina.  A  large 
portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  llawfields  were  Scotch-Irish, 
who,  on  coming  to  America,  first  settled  in  Pennsylvania,  and 
afterwards,  about  1755,  or  a  few  years  earlier,  some  of  them 
removed  to  North  Carolina.  It  was  not,  however,  until  1763 
that  the  petition  from  Carolina  could  be  favorably  considered. 
On  the  30th  of  August,  1763,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania,  appointed  the  Rev.  James  Proudfoot  to  spend 


262  HISTORY    OF    THE 

about  two  months  iu  Carolina.  He  was  to  preach  in  that  re- 
gion the  second,  third  and  fourth  Sabbaths  in  September,  and 
the  first,  second  and  third  Sabbaths  in  October.  This  appoint- 
ment ]Mr.  Proudfoot  did  not  filL  The  presbytery  called  upon 
liim  to  ojivehis  reasons  for  not  complying  with  its  order.  The 
reasons  of  Mr.  Proudfoot  having  been  slated,  were  regarded  by 
the  presbytery  "  as  containing  no  weight  in  them."  It  was 
further  ordered  that  Mr.  Proudfoot  "  be  admonished  and  the 
same  appointment  continued  on  him,  to  bo  fulfilled  some  time 
betw'een  tlie  beginning  of  March  and  the  end  of  May  next." 
At  this  time,  Mr.  Proudfoot  was  appointed  to  preach  four  Sab- 
baths in  Carolina.  For  some  reason,  wiiich  was  satisfactory  to 
the  presbytery,  he  remained  in  Carolina  only  a  part  of  the  time 
specified  in  the  appointment. 

This  missionary  tour  of  Rev.  James  Proudfoot  to  Carolina 
was  made  sometime  between  the  25th  of  October,  1763,  and 
the  loth  of  April,  1704.  The  appointment  wan  made  by  the 
presbytery  at  its  meeting  at  Muddy  Creek,  on  the  25th  of  Oc- 
tober, 1763,  and  ^Ir.  Proudfoot  made  his  report  to  the  presby- 
tery at  its  meeting  at  Oxford,  on  the  loth  of  April,  1764.  So 
far  as  is  known,  there  is  no  datum  bv  which  the  visit  of  Mr. 
Proudfoot  to  Carolina  can  be  more  definitely  fixed. 

The  particular  localities  visited  by  ]SIr.  Proudfoot  are  not 
certainly  known  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  they  were  in  Xorth 
Carolina  and  confined  to  the  society  or  societies  in  the  Ilaw- 
fields,  and  those  societies  which  afterward  constituted  in  part 
the  pastoral  charge  of  Rev.  John  Pox'se.  The  congregations 
in  JS'orth  Carolina  of  which  Mr.  Boyse  was  pastor,  Avere  Cod- 
dle Creek,  Gilead  and  Prosperity.  Of  these  Coddle  Creek  is 
certain K^  the  oldest.  In  fact,  Coddle  Creek  is  in  all  probability 
the  oldest  Associate  Reformed  congregation  in  the  South. 
There  was  in  the  region  of  country  in  wdiicli  Coddle  Creek 
church  is  located,  the  nucleus  of  an  Associate  congregation  be- 
fore 1760. 

In  1755  Braddock  was  defeated.  This  exposed  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Pennsylvania  to  the  hostile  attacks  of  the  Indians. 
To  escape  the  cruelties  of  the  savages,  many  persons  came  to 
ISTorth  Carolina  and  settled.  By  these  refugees,  mainl}-,  Pres- 
byterianism  was  introduced  into  the  region  of  countrx'  between 
the  Yadkin  and  Catawba  rivers.     It  is  probable  that  the  larger 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  2G3 

^number  of  these  settlers  were  in  connection  with  the  Presby- 
terian Church  ;  but  there  were  in  the  region  of  countrj^  in 
which  Statesville  is  now  situated  several  families  in  connection 
%vith  the  Associate  Church,  and  a  still  greater  number  farther 
•south,  iu  Rowan  county.  These  organized  themselves  into  a 
societ}' at  a  very  early  period,  giving  to  the  organization  the 
name  Caudle  (now  Coddle)  Creek. 

By  these  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  petition  was  sent,  about 
1760,  to  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  for  "  a  sup- 
ply of  sermon." 

From  several  facts,  it  seems  that  a  number  of  petitions  from 
Carolina  were  sent  to  the  Presbytery  in  May,  1763,  or  that  the 
services  of  more  than  one  man  were  desired.  This  is  the  only 
reasonable  construction  which  the  following  minute  of  the 
Presbj'tery  will  bear,  viz:  "The  petition  from  Carolina  is  in- 
compatible for  them  (the  Presbytery)  to  answer  at  this  time; 
but  that  one  of  their  number  to  gooiit  to  that  part  of  the  world 
is  all  they  agree  upon."  The  meaning  of  this  rather  obscure 
minute  seems  to  be  that  either  several  petitions  from  Carolina 
were  received  by  tlje  presbj'tery ;  or  if  only  one,  then  more 
than  "one  of  their  number"  was  desired  to  labor  among  those 
sending  the  petition.  It  would  seem  from  the  above  minute 
that  some  one  was  sent  to  preach  to  the  vacancies  in  Carolina  ; 
but  no  mention  is  made  of  his  name,  nor  have  we  any  means  of 
ascertaining  whether  he  obeyed  the  order  of  presbytery  or  not. 
The  presbytery  met  again  on  the  30th  of  August,  and  Rev. 
James  Proudfoot  was  appointed  to  preach  in  Carolina  on  the 
second,  third  and  fourth  Sabbaths  in  September,  and  on  the 
first,  second  and  third  Sabbaths  in  October.  The  presbytery 
.met  again  on  the  25th  of  October,  and  there  was  presented  "  a 
petition  from  Carolina  for  farther  supplies."  From  this  it 
would  seem  that  they  had  received  some  supplies;  but  that 
they  were  anxious  to  obtain  more,  or  that  some  other  societies 
in  Carolina  desired  supplies. 

It  was  at  this  meeting  of  the  presbytery  that  Mr.  Proudfoot 
was  admonished  to  be  faithful,  and  again  appointed  to  go  to 
Carolina. 

When  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  one  hundred 
and  twent}'  years  ago  there  were  no  mail  facilities  by  which  the 
petition  of  the  people  of  Carolina  could  be  conveyed  to  the  As- 


264  HISTORY    OF    THE 

sociate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania^  we  are  forced  to  conclude- 
that  the  petition  was  carried  by  individuals  in  connection  with 
the  society  sendinc^  it  up.  It  will  also  be  remembered  that  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  was  organized  on  the 
2d  of  Xovember,  1753;  consequently,  the  petitions  for  "supply 
of  sermon  "  Avere  sent  up  to  it  from  Carolina  in  less  than  ten 
3'ears  after  its  organization.  The  only  possible  way  by  which 
a  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  such  an  organization  as  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  could  be  obtained  by  the 
people  of  Carolina  was  through  emigrants  from  Pennsylvania-.. 
^Newspapers  had  at  that  time  no  circulation  in  any  part  of 
northern  South  Carolina  or  western  Xorth  Carolina.  There 
were  no  railroads,  no  stage  lines,  and  few  if  any  post  offices 
outside  of  the  seaport  towns.  All  tlie  facts  and  circumstances 
in  the  case  seem  to  indicate  that  there  were  more  than  one  pe- 
tition, and  that  Coddle  Creek  was  one  of  the  localities  from 
which  emanated  the  first  petitions  from  Carolina  to  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  for  "  a  supply  of  sermon." 
This  is  rendered  highly  probable,  from  the  fact  that  many  of 
the  first  settlers  of  the  Coddle  Creek  section  of  iN'orth  Carolina 
came  from  the  resrion  of  countrv  in  which  General  Braddock 
was  defeated. 

It  is  probable  that  Mr.  Proudfoot  extended  his  labors  as  far 
south  as  the  counties  of  Chester  and  Fairfield,  South  Carolina. 
This,  however,  is  only  a  conjecture  based  upon  the  fact  that  his 
name  was  more  familiar  to  the  first  generation  of  Seceders  in 
those  counties,  and  held  in  greater  esteem  by  them  than  any  of 
the  first  Seceder  ministers  who  came  to  America. 

As  we  advance,  the  darkness  which  envelops  the  early  his- 
tory of  the  Associate  Church  in  the  South  begins  to  dissipate, 
and  beams  of  light  begin  to  fall  upon  us.  At  the  meeting  of 
the  presbytery  at  Oxford,  on  the  13th  of  April,  1764,  "  two 
petitions,  one  from  Catawba  River,  Mecklenburgh  county,. 
Xorth  Carolina  (now  Hopewell  Presbyterian  Church),  and  an- 
other from  Hawfields,  were  read :  but  no  mention  is  made  of 
anyone  having  been  sent  to  preach  to  the  petitioners.  The 
demands  made  upon  the  presbytery  were  so  many  that  only  a 
few  could  be  met,  and  these  only  in  part.  The  fields  cultivated 
were  those  contiguous  to  the  laborers.  The  more  distant  were,, 
for  the  time,  practically  abandoned. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  2G5 

On  tlie  15th  of  August,  1764,  the  Associate  rresbytery  iiiet 
at  Marsh  Creek,  Peunsj'lvania.  At  this  meeting,  "the  peti- 
tions from  Carolina  (those  previously  sent)  came  under  consid- 
eration," Rev.  Robert  Annan  "was  unanimously  appointed 
to  set  out  thither  immediately  after  the  first  Sabbath  of  Sep- 
tember next,  to  be  three  Sabbaths  at  the  Hawfields,  and  two  at 
Sugaw  Creek."     This  appointment  Mr.  Annan  fulfilled. 

Sugaw  Creek,  usually  called  at  the  present  time  Sugar  Creek^ 
is  only  about  three  miles,  in  a  north-eastern  direction,  from  the 
city  of  Charlotte,  N.  C.  In  this  region  of  country,  sometime 
between  1755  and  1758,  Rev.  Alexander  Craighead  began  ta 
preach.  Some  time  in  the  month  of  September,  1758,  he  was 
installed  pastor  of  Rocky  River  Church.  AVhat  is  now  Sugar, 
or  correctly,  SugaAv,  Creek  Church,  was  part  of  Rocky  River 
congregation.  Rev.  Alexander  Craighead  was  nominally  in 
connection  with  the  Presb3'terian  Church,  and  in  this  connec- 
tion he  died  ;  but  it  was  only  a  nominal  connection.  In  sym- 
pathy he  was  inclined  to  both  the  Covenanters  and  the  Se- 
ceders.  Of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt  In  fact,  from  about 
the  3'ear  1742,  or  perhaps  from  1741  to  1753,  a  period  of  about 
ten  years,  he  Avas  not  in  regular  connection  with  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  althougli  resting  under  no  ecclesiastical  censure. 
During  a  part  of  this  time  he  cooperated  with  the  Reformed 
Presbyterians  or  Covenanters.  It  is  probable  that  he  never 
was  regularly  received  into  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church, 
but  it  is  certain  that  he  regarded  himself  a  Covenanter,  and 
was  so  regarded  bv  the  Covenanter  Societies.  At  the  general 
meeting  of  the  Covenanter  Societies  which  met  at  Middle  Oc- 
toraro,  March  4,  1744,  Mr.  Craighead  was  chosen  president  or 
chairman  of  the  meeting.  Xot  only  so,  but  the  congregation  or 
congregations  to  which  he  regularly  j^reached  was  called  the 
Craigliead  Society.  In  1751,  for  some  reason,  not  now  fully 
known,  he  made  application  to  the  Anti-Burgher  Synod  qf 
Scotland  for  ministerial  assistance ;  but  for  some  reason  no- 
ministers  were  sent  to  his  aid.  About  1753  he  returned  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  but  he  ever  cherished  for  the  Covenant- 
ers and  Associates  a  tender  regard,  and  so  did  they  for  him. 

It  is  more  than  probable  that  Mr.  Craighead  was,  in  some 
way  or  other,  connected  with  the  petition  addressed  to  the  As- 
sociate Presb^^tery  of  Pennsylvania  from  Sugaw  Creek. 


2G6  HISTORY    OF    THE 

In  May,  1765,  petitions  were  received  by  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  Pennsylvania  from  the  Hawfielcls  and  Buffalo,  in 
JSTorth  Carolina,  jointly  craving,  according  to  the  obsolete  but 
expressive  language  of  the  times,  "  a  supply  of  sermon ;"  but 
nothing  is  stated  by  which  we  are  enabled  to  learn  whether 
, these  petitions  were  granted  or  not.  In  l^ovember,  1766,  a 
petition  was  received  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  from  Craven 
county,  North  Carolina.  The  following  is  the  minute  of  the 
presbytery  respecting  this  petition  : 

The  petition  from  Craven  county,  in  North  Carolina,  came  lirst  under  con- 
sideration, concerning  which  it  was  agreed  that  Mr.  Annan  write  to  them  a  short 
detail  of  our  principles,  with  difference  between  us  and  other  denominations  of 
Presbj^terians  in  America,  and  upon  their  acquiescing  in  them,  to  give  tliem  to 
hope  that  supplies  will  be  endeavored  to  be  sent  thitlier. 

It  is  evident  from  this  extract  that  the  persons  in  Craven 
county,  jSTorth  Carolina,  who  petitioned  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania  for  supplies  were  not  in  connection  with 
the  Associate  Church.  It  is  barel}'  possible  that  some  of  them 
were  Covenanters,  but  it  is  very  probable  that  they  all,  or 
nearly  all,  were  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
!N"o  doubt  this  was  the  case  in  respect  to  several  other  places 
which  sent  up  petitions.  Why  they  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church  we  need  not  inquire,  only  in  part.  All 
that  we  need  know  is  that  many  of  the  more  rigid  Scotch- 
Irish  Presbyterians  regarded  the  American  Presbyterian  Church 
as  objectionable  in  some  particulars.  No  doubt  the  latitudina- 
rian  notions  which  were  beginning  to  be  entertained  by  some 
of  the  Presbyterian  ministers  constituted  tlie  principal  objec- 
tion. So  far  as  is  known,  no  Associate  congregation  was  ever 
organized  in  Craven  county  ;  neither  was  any  organized  at 
several  other  points  in  North  Carolina  to  which  supplies  of 
preaching  were  occasionally  sent.  If  there  is  anything  that 
the  Seceders  are  free  from,  it  is  proselj^ting.  "With  them  it  has 
ever  been  a  matter  of  conscience  to  receive  individuals  from 
other  Christian  denominations  onl}'  on  certificate.  In  addition 
to  this,  there  is  on  the  statute  books  of  the  church  an  unre- 
pealed law  to  the  effect  that  no  countenance  will  be  shown  to 
ecclesiastical  "  tramps." 

In  November,  1767,  the  people  of  the  Ilawfields,  in  North 
Carolina,  again  petitioned  for  supplies,  but  none  were  granted 
them.     During  the  earl}^  part  of  the  year  1768,  no  petitions 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  267 

Avere  sent  from  the  societies  in  the  South  to  the  presbyteiy  ; 
but  in  j^ovember  of  that  year  a  petition  from  Korth  Carolina 
was  received.  To  this  petition  the  presbj'tery  replied  by  di- 
recting Rev.  Thomas  Clark  to  write  to  the  petitioners,  "advis- 
ing them  to  collect  some  money  and  send  to  Scotland  for  a 
minister."  lN"othing  more  was  heard  from  the  societies  in  the 
South  until  ISTovember,  1769,  when  another  petition  was  pre- 
sented from  Rowan  county,  ISTorth  Carolina.  The  following  is 
the  action  of  the  presbyter}^  in  reference  to  this  petition  : 

That  Mr.  Clark  set  out  for  Carolina,  to  continue  three  months  and  dispense 
gospel  ordinances  only  in  the  following  places:  One  Sabbath  at  Deep  Run;  three 
Sabbaths  at  Hawfields;  three  in  Rowan  county;  three  Sabbaths  at  Waxhaws;  and 
three  at  Sugaw  Creek,  and  that  Mr.  Clark  encourage  the  people  to  apply  only  to 
the  synod  unto  which  this  presbytery  is  subordinate,  for  ministers  for  them- 
selves. 

These  appointments  Mr.  Clark  filled  some  time  between  the 
1st  of  May,  1770,  and  the  6th  of  l^ovember  of  the  same  year. 
This  is  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  was  given  appointments 
in  Pennsylvania  until  the  end  of  April,  and  he  was  present  at 
the  meeting  of  the  presbj'tery  at  Oxford  on  the  6tli  of  Novem- 
ber. 

In  August,  1771,  some  people  in  Mecklenburgh  county, 
^N^orth  Carolina,  again  petitioned  for  preaching  ;  but  as  it  was 
impossible  for  the  presbytery  to  grant  the  request  of  the  peti- 
tioners, Rev.  Messrs.  Henderson,  Rodgers  and  Smith  were  ap- 
pointed to  write  to  the  people  of  Mecklenburgh,  "  advising 
them  to  write  home  to  Scotland  for  a  minister." 

During  the  years  1772  and  1773,  petitions  for  supplies  were 
received  by  the  presbytery  from  persons  residing  in  N'orth 
Carolina  ;  but  all  that  could  be  done  by  the  presbytery  was  to 
write  to  them,  advising  them  as  they  had  done  before,  "  to 
write  home  to  Scotland  for  a  minister." 

The  presbytery  did  not,  however,  forget  the  people  of  ISTorth 
•Carolina.  Mr.  Rodgers,  pastor  of  Timber  Ridge  and  connec- 
tions in  Virginia,  was  sent  to  Xorth  Carolina  in  the  fall  of 
1774.  He  preached,  probably,  in  the  Hawfields,  and  to  the  so- 
cieties in  Rowan  county,  the  first,  second,  third  and  fourth 
Sabbaths  of  September,  and  the  first  Sabbath  of  October. 

In  October,  1744,  the  Associate  Presbytery  met  at  IN'ew  York. 
At  this  meeting  three  petitions  were  received  from  North  Car- 
Molina.     One  was  from  the  Hawfields.     The  other  two  were 


268  HISTORY  or  the 

from  places  which,  so  far  as  the  records  show,  had  never  before 
sent,  lip  petitions  to  tlie  Associate  Presbytery.  One  of  these 
was  from  Eno,  or,  following  the  orthography  of  the  record, 
"  Eimoe,"  and  the  other  was  from  New^Plope,  Tyron  county, 
Xorth  Carolina.  Both  those  places  were  in  the  south-eastern 
corner  of  what  is  now  Gaston  county,  IS'orth  Carolina,  near  the 
Catawba  river.  In  1774,  all  that  part  of  jSTorth  Carolina  west 
of  the  Catawba  River,  together  with  what  now  constitutes 
several  of  the  upper  counties  of  South  Carolina,  was  known  as 
Tryon  county.  When,  then,  it  is  said  that  petitions  came  from 
Tryon  county,  it  may  mean  either  from  North  Carolina  or  South 
Carolina.  So  far,  however,  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover, 
no  petition  from  South  Carolina  was  ever  sent  to  the  Associate 
Presbj'tery  of  Pennsjdvania.  This  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact 
that  the  members  of  the  Associate  Church,  who  settled  in  South 
Carolina,  with  the  exception  of  those  in  Long  Cane  and  Cedar 
Spring,  generally  came  directly  from  Ireland  and  Scotland,  and 
not  by  way  of  Pennsylvania,  and  consequent!}^  knew  nothing 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Associate  Presbyter}^  of  Pennsylvania 
at  Pequea,  Pa.,  on  August;  1st,  1775,  petitions  "  craving  a  sup- 
ply of  sermon  were  presented  from  the  counties  of  Mecklen- 
burgh,  Tryon  and  Rowan,  in  Xorth  Carolina." 

The  petition  from  Rowan,  we  feel  satisfied,  came  from  Cod- 
dle Creek  and  connections  ;  that  from  Mecklenburgh,  from 
Steele  Creek  and  AVaxhaws  ;  and  that  from  Tr^^on,  from  Ena 
and  Xew  Hope,  and  an  Associate  congregation  or  society  a 
short  distance  south  of  Lincolnton,  called  Goshen,  and  from 
which  was  formed  in  part  what  is  at  present  Pisgah,  in  Gaston 
count}^,  N".  C.  The  first  settlers  of  the  region  of  country  in 
which  Pisgah  is  situated  were  Scotch-Irish,  who  first  settled 
near  Gettysburg,  Pa.  From  that  point  they  came  to  what  was 
then  Tr3'on  county.  In  answer  to  the  petitions  above  men- 
tioned, the  following  action  was  taken  by  the  presbytery : 
■••  Mr.  Martin  preach  at  Raphoe,  1st  Sabbath  of  August ;  at 
Hanover,  2d  Sabbath  of  August ;  at  Raphoe,  3d  Sabbath  of 
August ;  at  Cone wa go,  4th  Sabbath  of  August ;  at  Marsh  Creek, 
on  the  1st  and  2d  Sabbaths  of  September;  at  Staunton,  Va., 
3d  Sabbath  of  September,  and  thenceforward  to  the  next  meet- 
ing supply  in  the  different  places  in  JSTorth  Carolina  where 
there  are  petitions  from,  and  longer  if  he  finds  it  necessary." 


ASSOCIATE   TRESBYTERY.  2G9 

Since  Mr.  Martin  certain]}^  came  to  Xortli  Carolina,  and  as 
there  is  no  evidence  to  tlie  contrary,  it  is  taken  for  granted 
that  he  obeyed  the  order  of  tlie  presbytery  to  the  very  letter. 
In  October,  1776,  Mr.  Martin  received  a  call  from  Fourth 
•Creek,  in  Xortli  Carolina.  By  Fourth  Creek  is  meant  what 
was  once  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  tliat  name,  but  i5  now 
known  as  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Statesville,  IST.  C.  This 
call  the  presbytery  refused  to  sustain,  because,  of  the  inade- 
quacy of  the  support  promised. 

It  is  evident,  from  a  variety  of  facts,  that  tradition  has  not 
been  careful  in  distinguishing  the  two  Martins  who  labored 
among  the  Associate  and  Covenanter  vacancies  in  the  Caroli- 
nas.  James  Martin,  the  Associate  minister,  is  by  tradition,  al- 
most entirely  ignored. 

In  1777,  the  ilev.  Andrew  Patton  ^yns  sent  to  Xortli  Caro- 
lina. For  some  time  he  preached  in  ]\Iecklcnburgh  and  adjoin- 
ing counties,  and  afterwards  went  to  the  city  of  Charleston,  S. 
C.  Of  his  labors  in  that  city  nothing  is  certainly  known.  He 
was  very  soon  charged  with  gross  immorality,  and  the  proba- 
bility is,  he  did  the  cause  wdiicli  he  was  sent  out  to  advance  a 
real  injury. 

In  the  fall  of  1779,  Rev.  Thomas  Clark  preached  to  some  of 
the  Associate  congregations  or  societies  in  Xorth  Carolina, 
when  on  his  w^ay  to  visit,  bj^  order  of  presb}- teiy,  that  part  of 
his  congregation  which  settled  in  Abbeville  county,  South 
Carolina. 

In  1767,  a  considerable  portion  of  an  Anti-Burgher  congrega- 
tion came  to  America.  They  settled  in  what  is  now  Newberiy 
county.  South  Carolina.  In  1770,  the}'  were  joined  by  their 
pastor.  Rev.  John  Renwick,  and  another  portion  of  the  con- 
gregation. In  this  region  of  the  countiy  Mr.  Renwick  con- 
tinued to  labor  until  the  20th  of  August,  1775,  when  he 
died.  The  societies  to  which  Mr.  Renwick  principally  minis- 
tered, were  those  out  of  which  grew  the  churches.  Cannon 
Creek,  Head  Spring  and  Prosperit}- . 

It  is  probable  that  from  the  fall  of  1779  to  the  summer  of 
1782,  there  was  no  Associate  minister  in  the  South,  in  good 
and  regular  standing,  except  a  Mr.  Ronaldson,  of  whom  noth- 
ing is  known,  except  that  he  sympathized  wnth  the  British 
government,  and   for  tbis  offense  was    forced  to  leave  Long 


270  HISTORY    OP    THE 

Cane  coDaTegation,  to  which  he  was  preaching,  probably  as- 
stated  suj-jply.  He  went  to  Georgia  and  became  the  pastor,  or 
probably  only  stated  supply,  of  some  congregations  occupying 
the  territorj'  in  which  Louisville  is  now  situated  ;  but  his  tory 
notions,  or  rather  loyalty  to  the  British  government,  becoming 
know^i  to  tlie  people,  "his  pastoral  relations  were,"  it  is  said, 
"violently  dissolved,"  which  means,  no  doubt,  the  people  drove 
him  away. 

The  war  between  the  coloniets  and  the  mother  country  was- 
now  absorbing  the  attention  of  all  classes  in  society.  Several 
(^f  the  Associate  preachers  were  chaplains  in  the  American 
army  during  the  war,  and  the  Associates  and  the  Covenanters^ 
to  a  man,  espoused  the  cause  of  the  colonies.  Such  being  the 
condition  of  the  countrv,  the  Associate  societies  in  the' South 
were  temporarily  abandoned. 

In  the  region  of  country  between  the  Catawba  and  Broad 
rivers,  the  old  Covenanter,  AViliiam  Martin,  continued  to 
preach  both  the  gospel  and  resistance  against  the  British  gov- 
ernment, until  he  was  taken  prisoner  by  the  tories  and  British, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  summer  of  1780.' 

There  were,  however,  during  all  this  ])eriod,  several  preach- 
ers who  claimed  to  be  ministers  of  the  Associate  Church.  Of 
these  men  scarely  anything  except  their  names  is  known,  and 
even  these,  in  some  instances,  have  been  forgotten.  The  tradi- 
tion is  that  they  had  been  deposed,  on  account  of  immoral  con- 
duct—  generally  drunkenness  and  fornication.  Writhing, 
probably,  under  disgrace,  they  came  to  America,  and  at- 
tempted to  thrust  themselves  upon  the  people.  In  no  in- 
stance were  they  successful  in  this  among  the  Associate  peo- 
ple, and  so  far  as  is  known,  their  conduct  became  ver^'  im- 
moral, and  they  sunk  into  open  profligacy. 

In  the  spring  of  1782,  Rev.  Thomas  Clark  was,  at  his  own 
request,  released  from  the  pastoral  care  of  Salem  congregation, 
in  !N"ew  York.  Soon  afterward  he  repaired  to  Abbeville  coun- 
ty. South  Carolina,  and  spent  the  remainder  of  the  year  1782, 
and  the  greater  part  of  the  year  1783,  in  laboring  in  the  con- 
gregations of  Long  Cane,  Little  Eun  and  Cedar  Creek.  The 
majority  of  the  members  of  these  three  congregations  had 
been  in  connection  with  the  church  of  which  Mr.  Clark  was 
pastor  in  Ireland.     Some  time  durhig  the  latter  part  of  the 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  2Ti' 

summer  of  1783  he  veturned  North,  identified  himself  with 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  and  was  elected  Moderator  of 
the  Synod.  The  following  two  years  he  labored  as  a  mission- 
avy  amon^^  the  Associate  Reformed  Churches  in  the  North. 

In  IS'ovember,  1783,  Rev.  John  Jamieson,  a  native  of  Scot- 
land and  member  of  the  Eurgher  Synod,  came  to  America  and 
immediately  joined  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  For  a 
period  of  nearly  twelve  months  he  ministered  mainly  in  the 
South.  In  May,  1785,  Mr.  Jamieson  reported  to  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  that  "  a  number  of  people  in  and  about 
Mecklenburgh  and  Rowan  counties,  North  Carolina,  and 
Rocky  Creek,  Cannon's  Creek  and  Long  Cane,  in  South 
Carolina,  who  are  destitute  of  a  settled  ministry,  desire  to 
be  taken  nnder  the  judicial  care  of  this  Synod."  On  hearing 
this  report,  the  Synod — 

Eesolred,  That  the  desire  of  these  people  be  complied  with,  and  that  the 
Second  Presbytery  be  directed  to  take  them  under  their  immediate  charge,  and 
that  Mr.  Clark  and  Houleston  be  appointed  to  supply  the  people  in  North  and 
South  Carolina  as  soon  in  the  fall  as  practicable. 

Mr.  Clark  came  South  sometime  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
year  1785,  and  began  to  labor  permanently  in  Abbeville  coun- 
ty.  South   Carolina.      Mr.  Adam  Houleston  died   in  March,. 
1786,  without,  it  is  supposed,  having  been  able  to  fill  the  ap- 
pointment of  Synod. 

For  a  period  of  about  five  years,  the  congregations  at  pres- 
ent forming  the  First  and  Second  Presbyteries  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  were  in  connection  with  the 
Second  Presb3'tery  of  Pennsylvania.  In  1785,  Rev.  John 
Rodgeis  settled  as  pastor  of  Timber  Ridge  and  Old  Provi- 
dence, Virginia.  These  congregations  also  were  under  the 
care  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania. 

On  the  31st  of  May,  1786,  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod 
met  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  Pa.  On  the  next  day  (June 
1st),  a  call  to  Rev.  Thomas  Clark,  with  a  petition  from  the 
united  congregations  of  Little  Run,  Long  Cane  and  Cedar 
Creek,  '•  to  admit  the  said  Mr.  Clark  to  the  pastoral  charge  of 
the  said  congregations"  was  read. 

Mr.  Clark  was  at  time  in  South  Carolina,  laboring  among 
the  people,  petitioning  for  his  settlement  as  their  pastor.  The 
synod  directed  that  he  continue  to  labor  among  them  till  pro- 
vision be  made  for  his  resfular  installment. 


272  HISTORY    OF    THE 

So  far  as  is  certainl}'  known,  Mr.  Clark  was  never  formall}' 
installed  over  Cedar  Spring  (called  Cedar  Creek  formerly), 
and  Loni^  Cane.  If  it  could  be  proved  that  lie  never  was  in- 
stalled pastor  of  these  congregations  there  would  have  been 
nothing  irregular  in  the  matter.  He  was  regularlj"  installed 
as  pastor  of  l>allybay,  Ireland,  and  be  as  pastor  and  the  people 
iis  members  of  Ballybay  congregation  came  to  America.  Mr. 
John  Renwick  certainly  was  pastor  of  Cannon  Creek  and  In- 
dian Creek,  but  he  never  was  installed  over  that  people.  The 
oldest  pastorate  in  any  of  the  Seceder  churches  in  the  Caro- 
linas  or  Georgia  is  certainly  that  of  John  Renwick,  in  N'ew- 
berry.  The  next  is  that  of  Thomas  Clark,  in  Cedar  Spring 
and  Long  Cane. 

It  is  worth}'  of  mention  in  this  place  that  none  of  the  terri- 
tory south  of  the  James  River  Avas,  previous  to  1785,  included 
within  the  limits  of  any  Associate  Reformed  presbytery.  In 
the  region  of  country  extending  from  Lynchburg,  A'irginia,  to 
a  point  man}-  miles  south  of  Jjouisville,  Georgia,  there  were  a 
number  of  societies  of  the  Associate  and  Covenanter  faith. 
Some  were  Burghers,  some  were  Anti-Burghers,  and  some 
were  Covenanters.  In  relative  strength,  the  Anti-Burghers 
and  Covenanters  were  about  equal,  while  the  Burghers  were 
generally  few  in  number,  except  in  Long  Cane  and  Cedar, 
Spring  congregations,  where  they  were  decidedly  in  the  ma- 
jority. The  tract  of  country  occupied  by  these  scattered  soci- 
eties was  fully  four  hundred  miles  long  and  about  fifty  wide. 
In  this  tract  of  country  there  were,  as  early  as  1785,  at  least 
forty  societies  of  Seceders,  and  perhaps  half  that  number  of 
Covenanters.  Man}'  of  these  consisted  of  only  a  few  families. 
The  whole  number  of  Covenanters  and  Seceders  in  connection 
with  these  societies  were  not  more,  perhaps,  than  fifteen  hun- 
dred or  two  thousand. 

Some  of  these  societies  had,  previous  to  the  Revolutionary 
war,  houses  of  worship;  but  the  probability  is  that  the  major- 
ity of  them  worshipped  in  private  houses  in  the  winter,  and 
in  the  summer  under  the  shade  of  the  forest. 

Quite  a  number  of  these  weak  societies  despairing,  perhaps, 
of  ever  being  able  to  secure  organizations  of  their  own  faith 
and  order,  united  with  Presbyterian  congregations.  Some  of 
these,  in  after  years,  became  dissatisfied  and  returned  to  the 
church  of  their  fathers;  but  the  majority  remained. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  273 

Some  time  during  the  early  part  of  the  siinuner  of  1788,  llev. 
•John  Boyse  began  to  preach  in  the  congregations  of  Coddle 
Creek,  in  Xorth  Carolina,  and  in  Eocky  Creek,  South  Caro- 
lina. His  ecclesiastical  connection  was  with  the  Associate  Ee- 
formed  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania.  By  this  presbytery  he 
was  licensed,  in  the  autumn  of  1787,  and  onlaiued  in  the 
summer  of  1789.  Immediately  after  being  licensed,  ]Mr.  Bo\'se 
came  South  and  began  to  preach  to  two  congregations,  the 
members  of  which  were  scattered  over  a  tract  of  country  more 
than  one  hundred  miles  long,  and  fully  twenty  miles  wide. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark  that  during  the  pastor- 
ate of  Mr.  Boyse,  it  was  no  uncommon  thing  for  individuals 
to  go  a  distance  of  thirty  miles  to  church.  The  members  of 
Hopewell  congregation  were  scattered  all  over  the  counties  of 
Chester  and  Fairfield,  and  several  families  (the  Eoddeys  and 
Galloways)  lived  in  York  county. 

The  Associate  Presb}' terians  and  Covenanters  in  the  South 
had  very  little,  if  anything  at  all  to  do  in  effecting  the  union 
which  resulted  in  the  organization  of  the  Associate  Eeformed 
Church.  They  had,  no  doubt,  learned  through  Eev.  Thomas 
Clark  that  negotiations  having  a  union  in  view  were  in  pro- 
gress between  the  Associate  and  Eeformed  Presbyterians.  To 
the  majority  of  the  Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers  in  the  South, 
the  union  was  agreeable,  and  they  readily  entered  the  Associ- 
ate Eeformed  Church.  A  few  of  the  Covenanters  in  the  South 
went  into  the  union  church;  but  the  majority  held  themselves 
aloof  from  it.  They  kept  up  their  society  meetings  and  main- 
tained their  existence  for  a  period  of  eight  or  ten  years  without 
the  aid  of  a  minister.  In  1790,  they  were  visited  by  Eev.  James 
Eeid,  a  missionary  sent  out  b}^  the  Eeformed  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Scotland.  Mr.  Eeid  returned  in  the  summer  of 
1790.  In  1791,  Eev.  Mr.  McGarragh  was  sent  to  South  Car- 
olina, and  in  1792,  he  was  joined  by  Eev.  William  King. 
Thomas  Donnelly,  a  graduate  of  Glasgow,  Scotland,  began  the 
study  of  theolgy  under  Mr.  King.  He  was  licensed  in  1799, 
and  ordained  in  1801.  • 

For  a  few  years,  during  the  close  of  the  last  century  and  be- 
ginning of  the  present,  a  number  of  Covenanter  congregations 
were  organized  in  the  South,  and  pastors  settled  over  them. 
So  far  as  is  known,  these  were  all  in  South  Carolina,  and  nearly 

19 


274  HISTORY    OF    THE 

all  in  Chester  comity.  As  early  as  the  year  1800,  the  people- 
in  connection  with  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  began 
to  emigrate  from  the  South.  About  that  time  a  number  of 
families  residing  in  York  county,  South  Carolina,  went  to  Penn- 
sylvania. Those  who  lirst  left  the  South  and  went  North  were 
induced  to  take  the  step  mainly  on  account  of  the  prospective 
increase  of  slavery.  Soon  after  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary 
war  the  number  of  negro  slaves  began  to  increase  rapidly  in^ 
the  upper  counties  of  South  Carolina.  These  were  tlie  counties 
in  wdiich  were  settled  by  far  the  greater  number  of  the  Cove- 
nantets.  The  institution  was  at  lirst  unpopular  with  the  bet- 
ter class  of  citizens  in  every  section  of  the  State  of  South  Car- 
olina, and  for  a  time  it  was  forbidden  by  law  in  Georgia.  Dur- 
inof  colonial  times  England  forbid  every  restriction  on  the  slave 
trade.  South  Carolina  became  alarmed  on  account  of  the  in- 
crease of  the  negro  slaves,  and  in  ITGOattempted  tores-trict  the 
number  of  negro  slaves  brought  upon  her  soil.  For  this  phi- 
lanthropic eifort  she  received  nothing  save  the  rebuke  of  the 
English  government. 

Prior  to  the  Revolutionary  war,  there  were  only  a  few  negro 
slaves  in  any  of  the  upper  counties  of  South  Carolina,  or  the 
western  counties  of  Xorth  Carolina.  The  few  that  were  in  the 
regions  designated  had  been  generally  brought  b}'  their  masters 
from  Virginia.  The  Scotch-Irish  Presbyterians  at  lirst  re- 
garded the  institution  Avith  horror.  Gradually,  they  became 
accustomed  to  it,  and  in  the  course  of  less  than  half  a  century, 
all  or  nearly  all,  became  its  practical  supporters. 

It  is  probable  that  at  the  time  of  the  surrender  of  Lord  Corn- 
wallis  there  were  not  one  hundred  negroes  owned  by  all  the 
members  of  the  Seceder  and  Covenanter  churches  in  the  South. 
As  «arly  as  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  a  few  of  both 
these  branches  of  the  church  purchased  slaves;  but  in  1800  the 
bod}'  of  both  Seceders  and  Covenanters  le  South  w^ere  de- 
cidedly opposed  to  slavery.  AVith  the  annual  growth  of 
slavery,  the  annual  emigration  of  the  Coveianters  increased. 
Some  of  those  who  had  become  owners  of  negroes  manumitted 
them,  while  others  who  had  less  conscientious  scruples  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  or  having  a  greater  thirst  ior  gold,  sold  their 
slaves  and  invested  the  money  in  the  rich  lands  of  the  north- 
w^est.  * 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  275 

There  were,  at  various  times  since  the  organization  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church,  about  a  dozen  of  Covenanter  min- 
isters who  settled  and  labored  as  pastors  in  South  Carolina. 
The  field  of  their  labors  was  mainly  included  by  the  counties 
of  Fairfield,  Chester,  Xewberry  and  York.  Thej^are  all  gone. 
The  dust  of  four  of  these  faithful  ministers  of  the  ISTew  Testa- 
ment sleeps  in  the  old  Brick  Church  grave  yard  on  Rocky 
creek,  in  Chester  county.  South  Carolina.  The  last  Covenanter 
minister  who  settled  in  South  Carolina  was  Thomas  Donnelly. 
He  finished  his  earthly  labors  on  the  28th  of  Xovember,  1847. 
All  the  Covenanters  are  gone  from  the  South.  The  greater 
part  emigrated  to  the  north-western  states,  and  the  rest  are  all 
dead.  Their  children  and  grandchildren,  who  remained  in  the 
South,  are  o-enerally  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church.  Some, however,  are  found  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  a  few  in  the  Methodist. 


ii.'Q 


276  HISTOUY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

F AC  TS  OF  THE  LAST  CHAPTER-  Petitions  to  the  Presbyterian  Church— Pres- 
byterian Missionaries — The  Coudusion  Likely  to  be  Reached — First  Presbyte- 
rian Minister  Sent  to  North  Carolina — Presbyterian  Settlers  of  North  Caro- 
lina— Cape  Fear  Settlers— Scotch  Settlers  of  1746-47 — Their  History — Battle 
of  Culloden — Duke  of  Cumberland — George  11. — The  Scotch  and,  the  Pre- 
tender— Conditions  on  which  the  Prisoners  were  Pardoned — Bladen  County 
Settlement — Other  Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish  Settlements — The  Harmony  of 
the  Presbyterians,  Associates  and  Covenanters  in  North  Carolina — Effects  of 
the  Difficulties  with  England — The  Lay  Members  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
Always  Friendly — Soundness  in  the  Faith — In  What  it  Consisted — Introduc- 
tion of  AVatts'  Imitation  of  the  Psalms — Its  Effects — The  Scotch-Irish  of 
North  Carolina — Two  Classes  of  Scotch-Irish — Their  Origin  and  Difference — 
The  Frequency  of  Petitions  from  Virginia  and  North  Carolina — The  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania — From  Whom  These  Petitions  Came — Not 
Presbyterians — Associates  in  Virginia — Their  Location — Coalesce  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

Tho  facts  respecting  the  early  history  of  the  Associate  Church 
in  Carolina,  narrated  in  the  precedin2j  chapter,  deserve  more 
than  a  simple  statement.  They  were  gathered  almost  entirel}' 
from  the  manuscript  minutes  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  from  the  manuscript  minutes  of  the  original 
Associate  Reformed  Synod.  These  two  documents,  taken  to- 
gether, cover  a  period  of  nearly  half  a  century,  and  contain  the 
whole  of  the  history  of  the  Associate  and  Associate  Reformed 
denominations  during  their  infancy.  So  far  as  facts  are  con- 
cerned, they  are  reliable. 

Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  documentary  history  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  cannot  but  be  impressed  with  the  great 
similarity  in  the  facts  recorded  in  the  minutes  of  the  Presby- 
terian Churcli  courts  in  reference  to  petitions  from  Xorth  Caro- 
lina and  those  facts  mentioned  in  the  last  chapter.  From 
nearly  all  the  places  in  Carolina  sending  up  petitions  to  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  petitions  were  sent  to 
the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Ministers 
in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Churcli  preached  at  the 
Hawfields,  at  Coddle  Creek,  at  Sugaw  Creek,  at  New  Hope,  at 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  2T1 

Eno  and  at  Goshen,  probably  before  Proudfoot,  Annan,  Ma- 
son, Martin,  Patten,  Rodgers  and  Clark,  and  certainl\^  daring 
the  time  they  were  preaching  at  these  places. 

To  the  o-eneral  reader  this  no  doubt  appears  strange,  and 
withont  an  explanation  he  is  ready  to  come  to  an  erroneous 
conclusion.  Is  it  possible  that  these  petitioners  from  N'orth 
Carolina  were  ecclesiastical  coquettes?  Had  they  buried  the 
AVestminster  Confession  of  Faith,  discarded  all  creed  and  con- 
fessions, broken  down  all  denominational  barriers,  and  reached 
that  point  in  ecclesiastical  decline  when  they  could  unite  with 
an}?"  party  ?  An  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances in  their  case  might  lead  to  such  a  conclusion,  but  it 
would  be  grossly  erroneous. 

So  far  as  is  certainly  known,  the  first  Presbyterian  clergy- 
man who  preached  in  Xorth  Carolina  was  Rev.  AVilliam  Rob- 
inson. Tie  spent  the  winter  of  1742-43  in  missionating  in  the 
region  of  country  east  of  Yadkin  river,  extending  his  labors 
as  far  as  the  Pedee,  in  South  Carolina. 

Previous  to  the  visit  of  Mr.  Robinson  there  were,  in  various 
sections  of  the  State  of  ]^orth  Carolina,  a  considerable  number 
of  Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish  settlers.  These  were  all  Presbyte- 
rians, either  by  profession  or  by  education.  Previous  to  P729 
there  were  a  few  Scotch  fettled  on  the  Cape  Fear  River.  These 
were  all  Covenanters  who  had  fied  from  great  tribulation  in 
their  native  land,  and  come  to  .the  wilds  of  America,  that  they 
might  be  permitted  to  worship  God  in  peace  and  quiet.  In 
1746  and  1747,  a  very  large  number  of  Scotch  came  to  Xortli 
Carolina  and  settled  in  old  Bladen  county.  The  history  of 
these  people  is  touchingly  interesting.  It  might  be  written  in 
tears. 

On  tlie  16th  of  April,  1746,  was  fought  the  battle  of  Cullo- 
den.  The  English  forces,  under  the  Duke  of  Cumberland, 
were  victorious,  and  the  fortunes  of  Charles  Edward  Stuart, 
the  young  Pretender,  were  ruined,  and  his  hopes  of  empire  for- 
ever crushed.  Many  of  the  Scotch,  forgetting  that  the  Stuarts 
w^ere  Catholics  and  the  Scotch  Protestants,  and  for  the  moment 
remembering  only  that  the  Stuarts  were  Scotch,  espoused  not 
the  cause  of  the  Pretender,  but  the  Pretender  himself. 

They  made  a  sad  mistake.  We  may  pity  them,  but  we  dare 
not  censure  them.  Their  love  for  their  country  was  genuine, 
but  too  stroncr. 


278  HISTORY  or  the 

Those  sectious  of  Scotland  which  had  declared  for  the  Pre- 
tender Avere,  by  the  conqueror,  swept  with  the  besom  of  de- 
struction. This  done,  the  Duke  of  Cumberland  returned  to 
London  to  be  honored  as  a  conqueror  and  over  afterward  de- 
spised for  his  brutality  towards  the  conquered.  The  Duke 
intended  to  put  all  the  prisoners  to  death.  The  King,  how- 
ever, was  more  merciful,  and  prc.posed  to  pardon  a  laro;e  num- 
ber upon  condition  that  they  would  take  the  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  House  of  Hanover,  and  then  emigrate  to  the  American 
plantations. 

The  condition  was  accepted,  and  during  the  years  1746  and 
1747  several  ship  loads  of  these  generous  and  brave, 'but  ill- 
advised  and  unfortunate  people,  landed  in  the  region  of  coun- 
try embraced  l)y  the  counties  of  Kortli  Carolina  watered  by  the 
Cape  Fear  and  Little  Pedee  Rivers.  To  these  people  the  Rev. 
James  Campbell,  a  native  of  Scotland,  began  to  preach  in  1757. 
This  settlement,  in  old  Bladen  county,  is  the  oldest  Presbyte- 
rian settlement  in  Xorth  Carolina,  and  James  Campbell  was 
the  lirst  ordained  Presbyterian  minister  who  settled  in  the 
State. 

Several  years  previous  to  the  defeat  of  General  Braddock, 
many  Scotch-Irish  Presbyterian  families  had  emigrated  from 
Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  and  settled  in  the  region  of  Xorth 
Carolina,  from  which  were  addressed  petitions  both  to  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  and  to  the  synods  and 
presbyteries  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  people  sending  up  these  petitions  were  all  l^resbyterians 
of  the  Scotch  or  Scotch-Irish  t3'pe.  According  to  a  nomencla- 
ture devised  b}-  themselves,  and  by  common  consent  adopted, 
they  were  known  and  recognized  as  Presbyterians,  Associates 
•or  Seceders,  and  Reformed  Presbyterians  or  Covenanters. 

Numerical]}',  it  is  probable  the  Presbyterians  were  the  stron- 
gest, and  the  Covenanters  the  weakest.  The  difference  in  num- 
bers in  some  sections  of  the  country,  between  the  Associates 
and  the  Presbyterians  was  scarcely  perceptible.  The  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances by  which  these  people,  in  common  with  the  people 
of  the  whole  country,  were  surrounded,  had  much  to  do  in 
causing  them  to  forget  those  peculiar  differences  which  rent 
into  fragments  the  Church  of  Scotland,  the  mother  of  them 
all. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  279 

111  Xortli  Carolina  there  were  no  patrons  ;  neither  were  there 
any  burgess  oaths  or  patronage  laws.  They  all  loved  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  Properly  speaking,  none  of  them  had 
seceded  from  it,  and  for  it  they  all  had  suffered  much,  and 
were  willing,  if  necessary,  to  suffer  more. 

As  time  rolled  on  and  events  developed,  fraternal  love  was 
increased.  By  whatever  different  names  they  had  been  called, 
and  whatever  were  their  former  prejudices,  they  were  now 
brethren.  Presbyterians,  Seccders  and  Covenanters  were  will- 
ing to  worshijt  God  under  the  same  roof,  and  hear  tlie  same 
man  preach.  In  addition  to  the  above,  it  may  be  added  that 
however  violent  some  of  the  ministers  of  the  different  branches 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland  may  have  been  in  their  opposition 
to  each  other,  the  strict  lay  members  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land were  ever  the  warm  friends  of  both  the  Seceders  and  Cov- 
enanters, and  for  the  Church  of  Scotland,  pure  and  uncorrupted, 
neither  Seceders  nor  Covenanters  ever  lost  any  of  their  first 
love. 

Such  being  the  case,  it  was  customary  for  Presbyterians,  Se- 
ceders and  Covenanters,  in  various  sections  of  America,  to 
unite  in  applications  to  the  different  church  courts,  for,  as  it 
was  then  said,  "  a  supplj^  of  sermon." 

In  these  ]^ortli  Carolina  Societies,  as  in  some  of  those  in 
South  Carolina,  the  people  were  not  particular  whether  the 
pireacher  was  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with 
the  Associate  Church,  or  witii  the  Covenanters.  Thej^  were, 
however,  particnlar  that  he  be  a  Presbyterian  and  sound  in  the 
faith  ;  which  meant  that  he  was  ready  and  willing  to  subscribe 
to  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  AVestminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  the  Catechisms,  Larger  and  Shorter. 

The  Presbyterian  Church,  b}'  allowing  the  u'^e  of  Watts'  ver- 
sion or  "  imitation  "'  of  the  Psalms,  perpetuated  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  in  the  South.  Had  this  not  been  done,  it  is 
almost  certain  that  after  the  Eevolutionaiy  War,  the  two  de- 
nominations would  have,  in  at  least  the  majority  of  cases,  co- 
alesced. 

It  is  also  probable  that  had  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
been  able  to  supply  the  people  with  the  ordinances  of  God's 
house,  a  considerable  number  of  Presbyterian  congregations 
>would  have  withdrawn   and    united  with  the  Associate  Re- 


280  HISTORY    OF    THE 

formed  Church  when  the  change  was  made  in  psahiiody.  As 
it  was,  parts  of  several  congregations  did  withdraw  and  organ- 
ize Associate  Reformed  congregations. 

In  doctrine  and  form  of  worship,  all  the  branches  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Xorth  Carolina,  prior  to  the  change  in 
psalmody,  were  identical.  Such  was  not  the  case  in  the  States 
farther  north.  This  is  accounted  for,  in  part,  at  least,  by  the 
fact  that  the  Presbyterian  settlers  of  western  North  Carolina 
were  the  descendants  of  those  who  fled  from  Scotland  to  Ire- 
land during  the  period  which  immediately  preceded  the  reign 
of  "William  of  Orange.  They  are  known  in  history  as  Scotch- 
Irish — a  name  wliich  is,  as  near  as  can  be,  a  synonym  of  Pres- 
byterian. 

Between  the  descendants  of  the  Scotch  who  emigrated  to 
Ireland  during  the  reigns  of  James  I.  and  his  successor,  and 
the  descendants  of  those  who  emigrated  during  the  reigns 'of 
Charles  11.  and  James  II.,  there  was  a  marked  ditt'erence.  Both 
were  appropriately  called  Scotch-Irish;  but  in  the  former  a 
residence  of  fully  three-quarters  of  a  century  in  the  Emerald 
Isle  had  produced  great  changes.  They,  had  lost  much  of  the 
Scotch  type  of  Presbyterianism.  Tlioy  exhibited  a  fair  exam- 
ple of  Irish  Presbyterianism,  which,  so  far  as  purity  of  doctrine 
and  rigidity  in  Scriptural  modes  of  worshii-*  are  concerned,  was 
next  of  kin  to  Scotch  Presbyterianism. 

For  a  period  of  about  twenty  years,  or  from  1702  to  1779, 
petitions  were  sent  to  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsyl- 
vania by  persons  living  in  parts  of  Virginia  and  Xorth  Caro- 
lina for  "a  suppl}^  of  sermon."  The  Presbytery  often  met  six 
times,  and  never  less  than  four  times,  annuall}'.  With  only  a 
few  exceptions,  petitions  "  for  a  supply  of  sermon  '*'  were  read 
at  ever}'  meeting,  either  from  Virginia  or  Xorth  Carolina.  At 
the  same  meeting  there  were  frequently  read  petitions  from 
four  or  five  counties  in  Virginia,  and  from  as  manj'  in  North 
Carolina. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  persons  sending  up  these  peti- 
tions were  all  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Had  this 
been  the  case,  these  petitions  would  have  in  all  probability 
been  answered,  as  was  the  petition  from  some  persons  in  Craven 
county,  North  Carolina.  Some  members  of  the  Presbyterj- 
would  have  been  appointed,  as  was  done  in  that  case,  to  write- 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  281 

to  the  petitioners,  giving  them  a  clear  statement  of  the  particu- 
lars in  which  the  Associate  Presbytery  diftered  from  other 
Presbyterians  in  America,  and  promising  to  send  them  supplies 
if  they  would  agree  to  acquiesce  with  the  Presbytery.  This 
was  not  done,  except  in  the  case  of  the  petition  from  Craven 
county.  Consequently,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  peti- 
tions came  from  adherents  to  the  Associate  Presbyterian  Church. 
Such  being  the  case,  we  are  w^arranted  in  concluding  that  in 
that  portion  of  Virginia,  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  there  were 
certainl^^,  as  early  as  1762 — perhaps  several  years  prior  to  this — 
a  number  of  congregations  or  societies  in  connection  with  the 
Associate  Church.  They  were  not  all  confined  to  this  region. 
Petitions  were  sent  to  the  Presbytery  from  "Westmoreland 
county,  and  from  the  "  mouth  of  the  James  River."  Prior 
to  the  Revolutionary  Avar,  a  number  of  these  societies  had 
houses  of  worship,  but  how  many  cannot  now  be  correctly  as- 
certained. 

All  of  these  Associate  congregations  in  Virginia,  except 
about  half  a  dozen,  gradually  coalesced  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Here  and  there,  at  long  intervals,  may  be  found  in 
what  is  West  Virginia,  a  few  old  persons  unknown  to  history, 
who  still  cherish  for  the  church  of  their  youth  an  ardent  at- 
tachment. The  old  houses  of  worship  have  gone  to  decay^ 
and  except  in  a  few  instances,  their  very  sites  have  been  for- 
gotten. 


282  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

EMIGRATION,  AFTER  THE  WAR,  FROM  IRELAND— The  Old  Irish  Volun- 
teer— Emigrants  from  the  Churches  of  Ballynahinch,  Killeleagh  and  Aho- 
ghil — Their  Certificates — Emigrants  Settle  in  South  Carolina — Rev.  Peter 
McMullan  Comes  to  America — David  Bothwell  and  James  Rogers  Land  at 
Charleston,  December  25,  1789 — Bothwell  Goes  to  Queenstown.  Rogers  to 
Fairfield — Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  Constituted — Members 
Present — Congregations  Under  Its  Supervision — Their  Names — Dr.  Clark 
Clothes  Himself  in  Caiaonical  Robes — Number  of  Communicants — Burghers 
and  Anti-Burghers  Coalesce — Covenanters  Stand  Aloof — Character  of  the 
Congregations — Dr.  Clark  Dies — Rogers  Ordained  and  Installed — Blackstock 
Arrives — Boyse  Dies — McMullan  Settles  at  Due  "West,  Blackstock  at  Neely's 
Creek — John  Hemphill  Settles  at  Hopewell,  and  McKnight  at  Coddle  Ci-eek — 
Dixon  Settles  at  King's  Mountain.  Turkey  Creek  and  Bullock's  Creek — Alex- 
ander Porter  Settles  in  Dr.  Clark's  Old  Charge — Charges  Brought  Against 
Mr.  McMullan — McMullan  Suspended — Division  of  the  Presbytery — Broad 
River  the  Dividing  Line — James  McGill  Licensed — David  Bothwell  Dies. 
1801— Mr.  McMullan  Restored  at  Sharon— Nature  of  Mr.  McMuUan's  Diffi- 
culty— Messrs.  McMullan  and  Dixon  Decline  the  Authority  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church — 'Apjily  to  the  Associate  Church — Organized  into  a  Pres- 
bytery, 1803— Members  of  the  Presbytery— The  McMuUan-Dixon  Contro- 
versy. 

Almost  immediately  after  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary 
Avar,  the  tide  of  immigration  began  to  pour  the  distressed  and 
oppressed  inhabitants  of  every  government  of  Europe  into  free 
America.  Man}"  Protestants  of  Ireland,  sick  at  heart  on  ac- 
count of  grievances,  both  political  and  ecclesiastical,  left  the 
bogs  of  Deny  and  Antrim,  crossed  the  Atlantic  and  sat  down 
in  poverty,  but  glad  at  heart  in  the  wild  woods  of  the  Sunny 
South.  Mail}'  and  potent  were  the  reasons  w^hich  induced  the 
Seceders  of  Ireland  to  leave  their  native  land  and  seek  on  the 
western  side  of  the  Atlantic  a  home.  Upon  many  of  them 
poverty  pressed  like  a  millstone,  and  derision  pointed  at  them 
the  finger  of  scorn  and  contempt.  Panting  for  libert}',  they 
left  the  land  whose  sea-beaten,  shores  the}'  loved,  but  whose 
hardships  they  could  no  longer  endure. 

In  the  winter  of  1788-89,  several  hundred  Seceders  left  Ire- 
land and  came  to  South  Carolina.  They  sailed  in  the  Old  Irish 
Volunteer^  and  landed,  in  the  city  of  Charleston  about  the  last 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  283 

of  January  or  first  of  February,  1789.  From  this  point  they 
sought  homes  in  different  sections  of  the  State.  A  few  went  to 
join  their  relations  in  Williamsburg  county.  For  the  greater 
number  the  counties  of  Lancaster,  Chester  and  Fairfield  had 
special  attractions.  Some  of  them  found  homes  in  York  ;  a 
few  settled  in  Lincoln  county,  Xorth  Carolina,  and  the  re- 
mainder joined  friends  and  relatives  in  Abbeville  county,  South 
Carolina.  They  broug'ht  certificates  from  the  Church  Sessions 
of  Ballynahinch,  Killeleagh  and  Ahoghil.  Two  of  these  cer- 
tificates— possibly  more — are  still  preserved. 

On  the  23d  of  May,  1789,  the  Fii-st  Presbyterj-  of  Pennsyl- 
Tania  reported  to  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  that  they  had 
licensed  Mr.  John  Boyse  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  that  he  had 
received  a  call  frcTm  the  united  congregations  of  Coddle  Creek,- 
in  yorth  Carolina,  and  Hocky  Creek,  in  South  Carolina,  which 
he  had  accepted.  From  this  it  seems  that  the  original  name 
of  IIo})ewell,  in  Chester  county.  South  Carolina,  was  Rockv 
Creek,  and  that  Gilead  and  Prosperity  were  afterward  added 
to  the  pastoral  charge  of  Mr.  Boyse.  At  the  same  time  it  was 
reported  that  Mr.  Boyse  had  received  and  accepted  the  call 
from  Coddle  Creek  and  Rocky  Creek  (now  Hopewell),  "  a  pe- 
tition -was  read  fron  Union  congregation  on  Fishing  Creek, 
praj'ing  for  the  settlement  of  a  gospel  minister  among  them."' 
At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod,  in  May,  1790,  the  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania  reported  that  "they  had  on  the  first  of  July, 
1789,  ordained  ]Mr.  John  Boyse  as  pastor  of  the  united  congre- 
gations of  Coddle  Creek,  in  Xorth  Carolina,  and  Rocky  Creek, 
in  South  Carolina."  This  is  further  evidence  that  the  congre- 
gations of  Gilead  and  Prosperit}-  were  not  at  first  included  in 
the  pastoral  charge  of  Mr.  Boyse,  and  that  the  original  name 
of  Hopewell  was  Rocky  Creek. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark,  in  this  connection,  that 
about  the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking,  the  names  of  con- 
gregations were,  in  manj-  instances,  changed.  Rocky  Creek 
Meeting  House  became  Union ;  Little  Run  became  Little  River ; 
and  Cedar  Creek  was  changed  to  the  present  Cedar  Spring. 
•  From  the  minutes,  it  appears  that  in  1787,  a  call  was  pre- 
sented to  Rev.  John  Jamieson  from  the  congregations  of  Coddle 
Creek  and  Hopewell,  in  Xorth  Carolina.  Without  some  ex- 
planation, the  reader  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  the  Hope- 


284  HISTORY    OF    THE 

well  here  inentioned  was  the  Hopewell  iu  Chester  count}^ 
South  Carolina.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case.  Previous  to 
the  settlement  of  !Mr.  Hemphill,  there  was  no  such  a  place  as 
Hopewell,  the  name  of  the  church  being  Rocky  Creek.  The 
Hopewell,  which  in  conjunction  with  Coddle  Creek,  presented  in 
1787  a  call  to  the  Rev.  John  Jamieson,  was  the  Presbyterian 
church  which  still  bears  that  name.  It  is  situated  in  Mecklen- 
burgh  county,  Xorth  Carolina,  west  from  Davidson  College 
about  ten  miles,  and  about  two  miles  east  from  the  Catawba 
river.  Mr.  Jamieson  was  at  at  that  time  pastor  of  Big  Spring 
congregation,  in  Pennsylvania,  and  "had  no  inclination  to 
move."  Hence  the  call  from  Coddle  Creek  and  Hopewell,  !N"orth 
Carolina  was  not  acce[>ted. 

At  this  time,  1789,  there  were,  in  all  the  territory  south  of 
the  James  river,  only  two  Associate  Reformed  ministers — Rev. 
Thomas  Clark,  pastor  of  Cedar  Creek,  Little  Run  and  Long 
Cane;  and  Rev.  John  Boyse,  stated  supply  and  pastor-elect 
of  Rocky  Creek,  in  South  Carolina,  and  of  Coddle  Creek,  in 
Is'orth  Carolina. 

Some  time  during  the  year  1780,  the  Rev.  Peter  MeMuUan, 
pastor  of  the  Anti-Burgher  congregation  of  xVhoghil,  Ireland, 
came  to  America.  During  the  succeeding  autumn  and  winter 
he  missionated  among  the  churches  within  tlie  bounds  of  what 
is  now  the  First  Presbytery. 

On  the  25th  of  December,  1789,  Rev.  David  Both  well,  an 
ordained  minister,  and  James  Rogers,  a  licentiate,  landed  in 
the  city  of  Charleston,  South  Carolina.  David  Bothwell  was 
sent  to  America  in  answer  to  a  petition  addressed  by  the  Se- 
ceders  in  the  vicinity  of  Queensborough,  Georgia,  to  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Monaghan,  Ireland.  It  is  probable  that  David  Both- 
well  set  out,  immediately  on  landing  at  Charleston,  for  Queens- 
borough.  James  Rogers  says,  in  his  autobiography :  '^  I  re- 
mained two  weeks  in  Charleston,  at  Alexander  Robinson's,  and 
then  went  into  the  back  county  of  Fairfield,  where  my  uncle, 
James  Gray,  resided."  Having  remained  a  few  Sabbaths  in 
Fairfield,  he  went  to  Long  Cane.  Here,  on  the  21th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1790,  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia 
was  oro-anized.  The  followino-  is  the  ecclesiastical  procedure 
in  reference  to  the  formation  of  the  Presbytery  of  the  Caro- 
linas and  Georgia: 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  285 

At  tlie  meeting  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  at  Pliila- 
deipliia,  on  the  20th  of  May,  1789,  a  letter  was  received  from 
Rev,  Thomas  Clark,  in  which  he  reported  that  he  and  jNIr. 
John  JLJoyse  had  held  a  conference  with  Ivev.  Peter  McMullan, 
lately  from  Ireland,  and  that  after  prayerfully  consider ino-  the 
matter,  Mr.  McMullan  "  had  agreed  to  join  in  communion 
with  the  Synod."  This  led  to  the  following  action  :  On  mo- 
tion, 

Resolved,  That  the  Rev.  Thomas  Clark,  Rev.  Peter  McMullan,  of  South  Caro- 
lina, together  with  Mr.  John  Boyse,  probationer,  who  is  to  be  ordained  this 
summer,  be  authorized  to  form  themselves  into  a  presbyterj'  under  the  inspec- 
tion of  this  Synod,  as  soon  as  convenient. 

Incidentally,  there  is  hrouglit  to  our  notice  a  fact  which 
may  as  well  be  mentioned  here  as  elsewhere.  When  Mr. 
John  Boyse  was  granted,  the  privilege  of  taking  part  in  the 
organization  of  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia, 
it  was  upon  the  expressed  condition  that  he  be  ordained  pastor 
of  the  united  congregations  of  Coddle  Creek  and  Rocky  Creek. 
Such  a  thing  as  ordaining  a  licentiate  sine  titiilo,  or  in  other 
words,  ordaining  a  probationer  before  he  received  a  call  and 
signified  to  his  presbytery  his  acceptance  uf  the  call,  had  no 
existence  among  the  early  Associate  Reformed  fathers.  The 
name  of  a  probationer  was  never  entered  on  the  roll  of  Synod, 
and  there  were  no  presbyters  among  the  preaching  elders  but 
pastors.  Preaching  elder,  pastor  and  presbyter  meant  the 
same  thing. 

In  May,  1790,  the  First  Presbyterj-  of  Pennsylvania  reported 
that  "  in  consequence  of  tlie  two  calls  from  the  Carolinas  to 
Mr.  John  Bo^-se,  a  probationer  under  the  care  of  said  presby- 
tery,  he  was  ordained  on  July  1st,  1789,  as  pastor  of  the  united 
congregations  of  Coddle  Creek,  in  Xorth  Carolina,  and  Rocky 
Creek,  in  South  Carolina."  So  soon  as  this  report  was  made, 
a  resolution  was  offered  and  adopted,  that  "  the  name  of  the 
Rev.  John  Boyse  be  added  to  the  Synod  roll,  and  that  he  be 
invited  to  take  his  seat  in  Synod,  which  he  did  accordingly." 

When  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  was  or- 
ganized at  Long  Cane,  Abbeville  county.  South  Carolina,  on 
the  24th  of  February,  1790,  there  were  present  and  took  part 
in  the  ceremonies,  and  entered  into  the  organization,  Thomas 
Clark,  Peter  McMullan,  John  Boyse  and  Bavid  Bothwel],  or- 


286  HISTORY    OF    THE 

dained  ministers;  and  James  McBride  and  AVilliam  Dunlapy 
rulino;  elders.  James  Rogers  was  present  as  a  probationer, 
but  his  name  was  not  entered  on  the  roll.  The  territory  over 
which  tliis  presbytery  assumed  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  un- 
der the  King  and  Head  of  the  Church,  was  very  extensive.  It 
embraced  three  large  States — the  two  Carolinas  and  Georgia. 
In  reality  there  was  only  a  small  part  of  this  vast  scope  of 
country  occupied  by  the  peoj^le  over  whom  the  jn'esbytery 
claimed  to  exercise  supervison. 

The  name  of  the  Associate  Reformed  congregations,  at  the 
tim.e  of  the  organization  of  the  Pkesbytery  of  the  Carolinas 
AXD  Georgia  will,  no  doubt,  be  a  matter  of  interest  to  the 
members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  ;  at  any  rate  they 
should  l)e  preserved  as  a  memento  of  the  past.  For  tliTs  rea- 
son they  are  here  inserted. 

In  Xorth  Carolina  there  were  fourteen,  viz.:  Ilawiields, 
Eno,  Goshen,  Fourth  Creek  (now  Statesville),  Coddle  Creek, 
Xew  Hope,  Gilead,  Prosperity,  Rock  Springs,  Xew  Stirling, 
]S'ew  Perth,  Sard  is.  Providence  and  Waxhaw. 

In  South  Carolina  there  were  twenty-two,  viz.:  Ebenezer 
(in  York  county),  Steel  Creek  (now  Blackstock),  ISTeely's 
(h*eek,  Ebenezer  (in  Fairfield  county),  Rocky  Creek  (now 
Hopewell),  Rock}'  Creek  Meeting-house  (now  Union),  Ebene- 
zer (now  ISTew  Hope),  Indian  Creek  (now  King's  Creek), 
Cannon  Creek,  Prosperity,  Cedar  Creek  (now  Cedar  Spring), 
Long  Cane,  Little  Run  (now  Little  River,  in  Abbeville  count}-), 
Rocky  Springs  (in  Abbeville  county),  Gencrostee,  Duet's  Cor- 
iier  (now  Due  AVest  Corner),  Diamond  Hill,  Crystal  Spring 
Rocky  Spring  (in  Anderson  county).  Little  River  (in  Laurens 
county),  AVarrior's  Creek  (in  Laurens  county),  and  city  of 
Charleston. 

In  Georgia  there  were  eight,  viz:  Queensborough,  Buck 
Head,  Big  Creek,  Joppa,  Poplar  Springs,  Tweuty-Six-Mile 
Creek,  Eighteen-Mile  Creek,  and  Rayburn's  Creek.  In  all, 
forty-three. 

It  is  probable  that  there  were  other  preaching  points,  but 
their  names  are  lost  in  the  wreck  of  the  past. 

At  some  of  these  points  there  were  houses  of  worship — very 
common,  rude  log  cabins,  without  either  chimney,  stove  or 
seats.     The  debris  of  some  of  these  primitive  buildings  still 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  28T' 

remain  as  interesting  monuments  of  the  trials  and  triumphs, 
hardships  and  patient  endurance,  of  our  sainted  ancestors. 

The  organization  of  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolixas  and 
Georgia  ^vas  to  Revs.  Clark  and  Eoyse  an  event  for  which  they 
had  labored  arduously  and  prayed  devoutly.  Its  consumma- 
tion iilled  their  minds  with  joy.  Tradition  has  handed  down 
the  fact  that  on  the  day  after  the  organization,  Mr.  Clark,  then 
a  little  more  than  sixty-nine  years  of  age,  came  to  the  church 
clad  in  canonical  robes.  The  people  gazed  with  wild  astonish- 
ment. On  inquiry  why  he  had  laid  aside  his  plain  apparel  and 
attired  himself  in  a  powdered  wig,  cocked  hat  and  clergyman's 
gown,  he  replied  that  it  was  in  commemoration  of  the  organi- 
zation of  the  presbytcr3\ 

The  whole  number  of  communicants  within  the  bounds  of 
the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia,  at  the  time  of  its 
organization,  cannot  be  accurately  ascertained.  In  some  old 
documents  which  have  been  preserved,  the  number  of  families 
is  stated  as  Jive  hundred  and  tifty,  and  the  number  of  commu- 
nicants as  eight  hundred  and  forty  ;  but  not  more  than  one- 
half  the  congregations  are  reported. 

In  all  these  congregations  there  were  Burghers  and  Anti- 
Burghei's,  and  in  many  of  them  a  few  Covenanters.  The 
Burghers  and  Anti-Burghers  who  had  come  to  America  pre- 
vious to  the  Eevolutionarj^  War,  readily  coalesced,  and » went 
into  the  Associate  Eeformed  Church.  The  Burghers  who 
came  to  America  after  the  war,  also  joined  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  without  any  hesitancy  ;  but  the  Anti-Burghers 
for  a  time  hesitated.  Ultimately  all  of  them,  or  nearly  all, 
went  into  the  recently-organized  church,  but  they  did  so,  in 
many  instances,  with  great  reluctance.  Some  of  them  first 
made  application  to  the  Covenanter  Societies,  but  Avere  required 
to  make  some  acknowdedgments  or  explanations  before  they 
Avould  be  admitted.  This  they  refused  to  do,  and  as  the  best 
they  could  do,  or  would  do,  under  the  circumstances,  they  co- 
alesced with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  Tiiey  remained 
in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  for  a  period  of  more  than 
ten  years,  and  then,  as  the  sequel  will  show,  a  very  large  num- 
ber of  the  Societies  withdrew  and  joined  the  Associate  Church. 

"When  we  consider  all  the  circumstances  by  which  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Presbyterj-  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  was 


ti8»  HISTORY    OF    THE 

surrouiided,  wLeii  it  began  its  existence,  we  are  at  a  loss  to 
say  wliether  the  prospects  were  bright  or  gloomy.  There 
were  certainly  more  than  forty  Societies  to  be  watched  over  by 
four  ordained  ministers  and  one  probationer.  Tlie  probationer 
was  a  boy  witliout  experience,  and  Thomas  Clark  was  an  old 
man,  worn  ont  with  trials,  cares  and  labors,  and  a  third  was  a 
diseased  man.  These  societies  were  scattered  over  a  long  and 
wide  belt  of  country,  and  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few, 
*'  none  of  them,"  in  the  language  of  James  Rogers,  "  were  fixed 
in  a  congregational  way."  Generally,  the  people  were  poor. 
The  common  comforts  of  the  present  day  would  have  been  re- 
garded 1)3'  them  as  the  most  extravagant  luxuries.  The  coun- 
try was  covered  with  the  virgin  forest,  and,  except  at  long- 
intervals,  Avas  inhabited  only  In*  wild  beasts.  The  sturdy 
Scotch-Irish  immigrants,  rejoicing  in  the  freedom  of  the  land 
of  their  adoption,  went  to  work  Avith  a  determination,  by  the 
blessing  of  Heaven,  to  succeed,  and  in  due  time  their  efforts 
were  rewarded  with  an  abundance  of  the  necessaries  and  com- 
forts of  life. 

The  ministers  went  to  work  in  earnest.  They  preached  and 
prayed,  and  the  blessing  of  the-King  and  Head  of  the  Church 
attended  their  labors.  Good  old  Thomas  Clark  continued  to 
go  in  and  out  before  the  people  of  Cedar  Spring  and  Long- 
Cane,  until  the  26th  of  December,  1792,  wlien  he  "  came  to  his 
grave  in  full  age,  like  as  a  shock  of  corn  cometh  in  his  season." 
David  Both  well,  immediately  after  the  organization  of  the 
Presbytery,  repaired  to  Georgia  and  settled  as  pastor  of  Buck 
Head  and  Big  Creek  congregations.  On  the  25th  of  December, 
1792,  one  day  before  the  earthly  labors  of  Rev.  Thomas  Clark 
were  brought  to  a  close.  Rev.  William  Blackstock  landed  in 
Charleston,  South  Carolina.  Rev.  James  Rogers  missionated 
among  the  Societies  until  the  23d  of  February,  1791,  when  he 
was  ordained  and  installed  pastor  of  Little  River,  Cannon's 
Creek  and  Indian  Creek  congregations.  This  was  the  first 
ordination  and  installation  services  in  which  the  Presbytery  of 
the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  engaged,  of  which  there  is  a  record. 
The  ordination  sermon  was  preached  by  Rev.  Peter  McMullan 
and  the  charge,  probably  to  both  people  and  pastor,  was  deliv- 
ered by   Rev.  Thomas  Clark.     The  installation  of  Rev,  John 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  289 

Boyse,  as  pastor  of  Rocky  Creek  and  Coddle  Creek,  was,  accord- 
ing to  tradition,  eflected  some  time  durino-  the  year  1790  ;  but 
of  this  we  liave  no  certain  account. 

On  the  18th  of  JMarclj,  1793,  Rev.  John  Boyse  died.  In  this 
there  was  something  touchingly  sad.  Thomas  Clark  and  John 
Boyse  were  the  main  instruments,  in  the  hands  of  God,  in  or- 
ganizing the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia.  In 
three  years  and  one  month,  lacking  but  a  few  days  after  the 
accomplishment  of  the  cherished  objects  of  their  hearts,  both 
were  translated  from  the  church  militant.  Boyse  lingered  on 
the  shores  of  time  less  than  three  months  after  Clark  had 
crossed  the  river.  Clark  was  an  old  man,  full  of  j-ears.  Boyse 
was  in  the  prime  of  life.  God's  providences  are  always  risrht, 
but  often  mysterious. 

God's  providential  dealings  with  the  Church  demonstrate 
that  men,  however  eminent  for  their  piety  and  learning,  or 
however  zealous  and  self-sacrificing  they  may  be  in  gathering 
together  the  dispersed  of  Israel  and  in  building  up  the  waste 
places  of  Zion,  are  only  instruments  guided  and  controlled  by 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  perpetuity  of  Christ's  Kingdom  is  not  dependent  upon 
the  life  or  labors  of  any  particular  man.  To  short-sighted 
mortals  the  verj^  existence  of  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas 
and  Georgia  appeared,  no  doubt,  to  depend  upon  Thomas 
Clark  and  John  Boyse.  They  were  mistaken.  God,  in  due 
time,  raised  up  other  laborers  to  take  their  places,  and  the 
good  work  which  they  began  has"  b}'  others  been  carried  on 
until  the  present  day. 

In  the  spring  of  1794,  Rev.  Peter  McMullan  was  settled  as 
pastor  of  Due  West  Corner,  and  on  the  8th  of  June,  of  the 
same  year,  Rev.  WiUiam  Blackstock  was  ordained  and  in- 
stalled pastor  of  Steele  Creek,  (now  Blackstock),  Ebenezer  and 
]!^eely's  Creek.  The  pastoral  charges  made  vacant  by  the  death 
of  Messrs.  Clark  and  Boyse  remained  in  this  condition  for 
several  years.  During  this  period  they  received  only  occa- 
sional supplies.  On  the  19th  of  September,  1796,  Rev.  John 
Hemphill  was  installed  pastor  of  Hopewell,  Union  and  Little 
River  (now  Xew  Hope),  and  in  1797,  Rev.  James  McKnight 
was  installed  pastor  of  Coddle  Creek,  Gilead  and  Prosperity. 
"Thus  in  the  short  space  of  four  years  after  the  organization  of 

20 


290  HISTORY    OF    THE 

the  presbytery,  the  original  cliarge  of  Mr.  13oyse  was  divided' 
and  placed  under  the  pastoral  care  of  two  able  ministers  of  the 
gospel. 

In  1795,  Mr.  William  Dixon  was  licensed,  and  on  the  oth  of 
June,  1797,  he  was,  at  Bullock's  Creek  (now^  Sharon),  ordained 
and  installed  pastor  of  King's  Mountain,  in  Gaston  county^ 
North  Carolina,  and  Turkey  Creek  and  Bullock's  Creek  (now: 
Sharon),  in  York  county.  South  Carolina. 

On  the  2d  of  April,  1798,  Rev.  Alexander  Porter,  a  gradu- 
ate of  Dickinson  College,  was  ordained  and  installed  pastor  of 
Cedar  Spring  and  Long  Cane  congregations. 

There  were  now  (1798)  in  the  Presbyter}'  of  the  Carolinas 
and  Georgia,  eight  settled  pastors,  viz. :  James  Rogers,  Wil- 
liam Blackstock,  Peter  McMullan,  John  Ilempliill,  James  Mc- 
Knight,  Alexander  Porter  and  William  Dixon.  All  of  them, 
except  James  McKnight  and  Alexander  Porter,  were  born  iiL 
Ireland,  and  all  except  Ilomphill,  McKnight  and  Porter,  had 
received  their  collegiate  edncation  at  Glasgow,  Scotland. 
Rogers  and  Porter  were  Burghers  ;  Hemphill  was  a  Cove- 
nanter, and  the  other  five  were  Anti-Burghers  by  education, 
and  profession. 

The  basis  upon  which  these  coalesced  was  the  AVestminister 
Confession  of  Faith.  All  parties — Burghers.  Anti-Burghers 
and  Covenanters — now  enjoyed  in  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia 
those  privileges  for  which  they  and  their  ancestors  had  been 
earnestly  contending  and  patiently  suffering  for  more  than  one 
hundred  years.  God  w^as  smiling  upon  their  efforts  and  caus- 
ing them  to  forget  all  the  hardships  through  which  they  had 
passed.  Troubles,  however,  soon  came,  and  the  joy  of  the  Pres- 
bytery was  turned  into  sorrow.  In  its  infancy  it  was  called 
upon  to  lament  the  death  of  the  venerable  Clark  and  the  love- 
ly Boyse  ;  but  now  a  greater  trial  awaits  it.  In  the  spring  of 
1798  charges  were  presented  to  the  presbytery  against  Rev. 
Peter  McMullan.  In  these  charges,  which  partook  rather  of 
the  nature  of  a  complaint,  it  was  stated  that  Mr.  McMullan 
was  guiltj''  of  intoxication,  of  profane  swearing,  and  of  col- 
lecting money  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  "•  Brown's  Self- 
Interpreting  Bible,"  and  appropriating  the  money  to  his  own 
use  ;  and  in  addition  to  this,  contracting  debts  which  he  did. 
not  pay  promptly. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  291 

The  immediate  result  which  flowed  from  these  offenses  was 
that  on  the  13th  of  October,  1801,  Mr.  McMullan  was  indefi- 
nitely suspended  from  the  ministry.  The  final  results  will  be 
noticed  in  their  proper  place. 

The  church  at  Due  West  was  now  Avithout  a  pastor,  and  re- 
mained in  this  condition  for  a  period  of  nearly  twenty-nine 
years,  or  until  the  7th  of  August,  1830. 

In  October,  1800,  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Geor- 
gia was  divided  into  two  presbyteries,  Broad  River  being 
made  the  dividing  line.  All  that  portion  of  the  original  pres- 
bytery on  the  east  of  Broad  River  was  called  "  First  Presby- 
ter}^ of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia,"  and  all  west  of  the  same 
river  received  the  name,  "  Second  Presbj'tery  of  the  Carolinas. 
and  Georgia." 

For  several  reasons,  some  of  which  are  remembered  and 
others  forgotten,  and  none  of  which  were  of  any  great  impor- 
tance, this  division  of  the  presbytery  was  not  agreeable  to 
some  of  the  members,  and  for  a  number  of  years  the  dividirig 
line  was  practically  ignored.  The  congregations  of  Cannon 
Creek,  King's  Creek  and  Prosperity  were,  until  1824,  regarded 
as  in  the  First  Presbytery  ;  while  Sardis,  Providence  and  AVax- 
haw  were  in  the  Second  Presbytery.  In  1805,  these  congrega- 
tions, which  at  that  time  formed  the  pastoral  charge  of  Rev. 
Isaac  Grier,  were  by  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  at  the  request 
of  Mr.  Grier,  transferred  from  the  Second  to  the  First  Pres- 
bytery. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Cedar  Spring,  in  Xovember, 
1825,  the  following  motion  was  passed,  viz:  "  That  the  united 
congregations  of  King's  Creek,  Cannon  Creek,  Prosperity  and 
Head  Spring,  which,  heretofore,  have  been  connected  with  the,- 
First  Presbytery,  be  transferred  to  the  Second  Presbytery."' 
So  long  as  the  congregations  forming  the  pastoral  charge  of 
Rev.  William  Dixon  remained  in  connection  with  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church,  they  were  under  the  supervision  of 
the  Second  Presbytery,  although  east  of  Broad  river. 

In  April,  1801,  James  McGill,  a  graduate  of  Dickinson  Col- 
lege, and  licentiate  under  the  care  of  the  First  Presbytery 
of  Pennsylvania,  Avas  received  by  the  Second  Presbytery  of  the 
Carolinas  and  Georgia,  and  in  the  spring  of  the  next  year  or- 
dained and  installed  pastor  of  Little  River  and  Rocky  Springs, 


292  HISTORY    OF    THE 

in  Abbeville  county.  This  accession  to  the  roll  of  the  pres- 
bytery was  encouraging.  Extremes,  however,  are  usually  not 
far  apart.  In  the  month  of  June,  1801,  David  BothAvell,  the 
pastor  of  Buck  Head  and  Big  Creek,  died.  lie  fell  at  his  post, 
with  the  harness  on,  in  the  prime  of  life.  Tlie  removal,  by 
death,  of  Clark,  Boj'se  and  Bothwell  Avas  eminently  calculated 
to  impress  their  companions  in  labors.  Xo  doubt  they  were 
made  more  vigilant. 

In  May,  1802,  the  Second  Presbytery  licensed  Mr.  Robert 
Irwin,  and  in  December  of  the  same  year  ordained  and  installed 
him  over  the  congregations  of  Generostee  and  Diamond  Hill. 

On  the  loth  of  April,  1802,  the  Second  Presbytery  met  at 
Sharon,  York  county.  South  Carolina.  The  only  members 
present  were  Messrs.  AVilliam  Dixon  and  Alexander  Porter  and 
their  elders.  At  this  meeting  a  petition  Avas  presented  to  the 
presbytery  asking  that  the  sentence  of  suspension  be  removed 
from  Mr.  McMulhxn.  This  itetition  was  subscribed  b}'  a  num- 
ber of  Mr.  McMullan's  neighbors. 

Mr.  Dixon,  who  was  the  intimate  friend  and  boon  companion 
of  Mr.  McMullan,  and  the  elders,  voted  to  restore  Mr.  McMul- 
lan.  Mr.  Porter  voted  against  it.  The  result  was  that  Mr. 
McMullan  was  restored. 

AVere  it  not  on  account  of  the  connection  which  this  affair 
of  Mr.  McMullan  has  with  another  matter  of  grave  importance, 
it  might  be  dismissed.  Very  few  persons  of  the  present  day 
feel  any  special  interest  either  in  the  suspension  or  restoration 
of  Bev.  Peter  McMullan.  At  the  time,  and  for  many  years 
afterward,  however,  it  produced  intense  excitement,  and,  as 
we  shall  see,  terminated  in  a  rupture  in  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church. 

It  is  difficult  to  give  a  concise,  and,  at  the  same  time  a  clear 
statement  of  the  McMullan  difficulty.  The  facts  are  as  fol- 
lows: When  Mr.  McMullan  came  to  America,  he  was  an  Anti- 
Buro-her,  and  seems  not  to  have  been  aware  of  the  fact  that  in 
America  there  were  no  Burgher  oaths  either  to  take  or  oppose. 
The  first  thing  he  did  was  to  set  himself  in  deadly  opposition 
to  Rev.  Thomas  Clark.  The  only  ground  of  this  opposition 
was  the  fact  that  Mr.  Clark  was  known  to  be  a  Burgher.  On 
meetino-  with  Mr.  Clark,  his  Anti-Burgher  feelings  cooled 
down,  and  he  cordially  united,  as  we  have  seen,  with  Mr.  Clark 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  293 

in  organizing  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia. 
"When  the  presbyter}^  was  divided,  he  claimed  to  be  dissatis- 
fied about  something,  and  Mr.  Dixon,  wlio  studied  theology 
with  him,  and  unfortunately  had  contracted  some  of  his  bad 
habits,  espoused  the  cause  of  his  friend.  These  two  began  to 
abuse  publicly  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  The  proba- 
bility is  that  neither  of  these  men  was  dissatisfied  with  any- 
thing about  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  except  the  right- 
eous discipline  in  the  case  of  Mr.  !McMullan.  The  fact  cannot 
be  disguised  that  Mr.  McMuUan  was  very  intemperate,  and 
that  Mr.  Dixon  followed  for  a  time  his  example  in  this  respect. 
In  1798,  Mr.  McMullan  was  admonished,  but  it  had  no  good 
effect.  In  1801  he  was,  for  drunkenness  and  other  criminal 
acts,  silenced.  He  was,  by  unfair  means,  as  was  thought  at 
the  time,  restored  in  1802.  This  was  in  the  month  of  April. 
On  the  2d  of  September,  of  the  same  year,  Messrs.  McMullan 
and  Dixon  informed  the  Second  Presbytery  that  they  declined 
the  further  authority  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  Very 
soon  afterward,  if  not  before  this,  they  made  application  to  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Chartiers  for  admission.  In  response 
to  this  request,  two  commissioners.  Rev.  (afterward,  Dr.)  John 
Anderson,  and  Rev.  William  Wilson,  were  sent  to  examine 
into  the  nature  of  the  difficulty.  The  result  was,  that  on  the 
12th  of  January,  1803,  either  at  Sharon  or  at  King's  Moun- 
tain— most  probably  at  the  later  place — they  met  and  constitu- 
ted Revs.  Peter  McMullan,  William  Dixon  and  John  Cree,  into 
a  presbytery,  which  they  called  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the 
Carolinas.  Mr.  Dixon's  congregations  went  with  him.  Mr. 
McMullan  was  without  any  pastoral  charge,  and  Mr.  Cree 
was  pastor  of  the  Associate  congregations  in  Rockbridge  coun- 
ty, Virginia. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  neither  Mr.  Anderson  nor  Mr. 
Wilson  received  a  full  and  correct  account  of  the  nature  of 
the  difficulty  which  existed  between  Revs.  Messrs.  McMullan 
and  Dixon  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  From  all  that 
is  known  of  Messrs.  Anderson  and  Wilson,  it  is  almost  certain 
they  would  not  have  fraternized  with  them,  had  the  course 
these  men  had  been  pursuing  been  known.  Messrs.  McMullan 
and  Dixon  had  published  a  large  and  abusive  pamphlet,  in 


294  HISTORY    OF    THE 

which  they  charge  the  Associate  Reformed  Clmrch  with  "lay-' 
ills'  aside  the  "Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,"  and  a  number 
of  other  things  which  were  manifestly  false. 

It  may  have  been  that  Mr.  McMullan  and  Mr.  Dixon  had 
conscientious  scruples  with  regard  to  some  of  the  changes  which 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church  had  made  in  certain  Sections 
of  the  AVestminster  Confession  of  Faith ;  but  the  real  difficul- 
ty originated  in  the  intemperate  habits  of  these  men. 

The  organization  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Caroli- 
nas  was  certainly  an  unfortunate  thing.  It  divided  those  who 
ought  to  have  been  united.  Pastoral  charges  were  in  some  in- 
stances rent  in  twain.  Pastors  and  people  wasted  and  worse 
than  wasted  their  time  in  detecting  and  refuting  what  they 
supposed  to  be  the  errors  of  those  with  wdiom  they  had  once 
been  united,  and  with  whom  they  ought  to  have  continued  to 
dwell  in  peace  and  unity. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  295 


CHAPTER  XX. 

ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  SYNOD  OF  THE  CAROLINAS— Members  Pres- 
ent— Changes  which  had  Taken  Place  Since  the  Organization  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia — Character  of  those  who  Organized  the 
Synod  of  the  Carolinas — Their  Pastoral  Charges — Their  Love  for  Each 
Other — The  McMullan-Dixon  Difficulty — Course  Pursued  by  the  Synod — 
Charges  Brought  Against  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  by  McMuUan  and 
Dixon — McMullan  and  Dixon  Deposed — Division  in  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church — The  Difference  between  the  Associate  Reformed  and  the  Associates — 
The  Result  of  their  Quarreling — The  Presbytery  of  Chartiers — Resolutions 
of  the  Associate  Synod  Concerning  Slavery — Rev.  Thomas  Ketchin  and  Seve- 
ral Congregations  Join  the  Associate  Reformed  Church — Remaining  History 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas — All  the  Associates  in  the  South 
Coalesced  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  1844 — Ministers  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas. 

As  has  been  stated  elsewhere,  the  original  Synod  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church,  at  its  meeting  in  the  city  of  Xew 
York,  on  the  21st  of  October,  1802,  adopted  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Resolved,  That  this  Synod  will  divide  itself  into  four  Synods  and  form  a  Gene- 
ral Synod. 

These  four  Synods  were  to  be  known  as  the  Synod  of  New 
ToRK,  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  Synod  of  Scioto  and  Synod  of 
THE  Carolinas. 

Previous  to  the  dissolution  of  the  old  Associate  Reformed 
Synod,  a  resolution  appointing  a  time  and  place  when  and 
where  each  of  the  four  subordinate  Synods  should  be  organ- 
ized, was  adopted.  Ebenezer  Church,  in  Fairfield  county,  S. 
C,  was  specified  as  the  place  at  which  the  Synod  of  the  Caro- 
linas should  be  organized  ;  and  the  fourth  Wednesday  of  April, 
1803,  as  the  time.  For  some  reason,  as  the  following  minute 
will  show,  the  organization  was  not  eftected  until  the  9th  of 
May.     The  following  is  the  minute : 

Whereas,  The  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  at  their  meeting  held  at  the  city  of 
New  York,  October  the  21st,  1802,  did,  by  the  fourth  resolution  of  said  meeting, 
authorize  the  First  and  Second  Presbyteries  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  to 
constitute  one  Synod,  to  be  called  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  (reference  being 
had  to  the  printed  minutes  of  said  meeting  will  more  fully  appear) ;  And  ivhereas 
The  Synod  appointed  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  to  meet  at 


296  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Mr.  Rogers'  church  the  fourth  Wednesday  of  April,  1803,  to  be  opened  by  a  ser- 
mon by  Rev.  James  Rogers:  Some  circumstances  prevented  the  Synod's  meet- 
ing at  the  time  appointed,  but  through  the  good  hand  of  our  God  have  we  con- 
vened at  the  phice  nominated,  this  9th  of  May,  1803. 

Rev.  James  Rogers,  who  was,  by  the  old  Associate  Reformed 
Synod,  appointed  moderator,  preached  a  sermon  from  the  words: 
"I  will  give  you  pastors  according  to  mine  heart,  which  shall 
feed  you  with  knowledge  and  understanding.'' — Jer.  3:15. 
The  sermon  being  ended,  Mr.  Rogers  constituted  the  Associate 
Reformed  Sj'iiod  of  the  Carolinas  by  prayer.  There  Avere  pres- 
ent seven  ordained  ministers,  two  probationers  and  six  ruling- 
elders.  Their  names  were  James  Rogers,  William  Blackstock, 
John  Hemphill,  James  McKnight,  Alexander  Porter,  James 
McGill  and  Robert  Irwin,  ordained  ministers ;  and  Isaac  Grier 
and  James  McAuley,  probationers.  The  names  of  the  ruling 
elders  were  :  Charles  Montgoraer}^,  Alexander  Stewart,  Andrew 
McQuistou,  Henry  Hunter,  Arthur  Morrow  and  Duke  Bell. 

Of  these  fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
Carolinas  (now  Associate  Reforijied  Synod  of  the  South),  it 
may  be  safely  said  that  they  were  men  mighty  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. "With  the  exception  of  Rev.  James  McGill,  who  for 
many  years  labored  under  a  partial  insanity,  they  all  were  men 
of  more  than  ordinary  natural  abilities,  and  of  rare  intellectual 
and  theological  attainments  in  their  day.  It  would,  perhaps, 
be  extravagant  to  sa}-  that  they  were  iinished  scholars  or  dis- 
tinguished pulpit  orators.  These,  it  is  supposed,  they  were 
not;  but  they  all  were  instructive  preachers.  They  were  pas- 
tors who  fed  the  people  of  God  "  with  knowledge  and  under- 
standing." They  are  all  dead.  For  half  a  centurj^  all  that 
was  mortal  of  these  pious  men  has  been  mingling  with  its  kin- 
dred dust ;  but  by  their  self-sacrificing  labors  and  godly  ex- 
amples they  made  an  impress  upon  society  which  is  still  visible. 
It  is  claimed  for  them  that  they  lived  eminently  pious  and 
useful  lives  and  went  down  to  their  graves  in  j^eace,  and  be- 
queathed to  the  congregations  which,  under  God,  they  planted 
and  watered,  a  rich  inheritance  in  their  untarnished  names. 

The  pastoral  charges  in  connection  with  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  at  the  time  of  its  organization,, 
were  seven,  being  equal  to  the  number  of  ordained  ministers. 
James  Rogers  was  pastor  of  Cannon  Creek,  King's  Creek  and. 


ASSOCIATE    TRESBYTERY.  297 

Ebenezer.  William  Blackstock  was  i)astor  of  Steele  Creek, 
Ebenezer  and  Neely's  Creek.  John  Hemphill  was  pastor  of 
Hopewell,  Union  and  Little  River  (now  Xew  Hope).  James 
McKnight  was  pastor  of  Coddle  Creek,  Gilead  and  Prosperity. 
Alexander  Porter  was  pastor  of  Cedar  Spring  and  Long  Cane. 
James  McGill  was  pastor  of  Little  River  and  Rocky  Springs, 
both  in  Abbeville  county,  S.  C.  Robert  Irwin  was  pastor 
elect,  but  probably  not  installed,  of  Generostee  and  Diamond 
Hill. 

These  seven  pastors  were  bound  together  by  the  strongest 
possible  ties.  In  each  other's  temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal 
welfiire  they  w.ere  deeply  interested.  They  had  the  same  great 
and  good  cause — the  salvation  of  immortal  souls — at  heart. 
They  had  no  private  ends  to  accomplish ;  no  individual  pur- 
poses to  effect.  Of  them  it  may  be  truthfully  said :  "  They 
took  up  their  cross  and  followed  Jesus."  In  all  sincerity  they 
endeavored  to  live  at  peace  with  each  other  and  with  all  men. 
By  the  hlessing  of  God,  they  lived  in  perfect  harmony  with 
each  other.  If,  as  a  Latin  historian  says,  to  love  the  same  thing 
and  to  hate  the  same  thing  constitutes  friendship,  then  the 
fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  were 

devoted  friends. 
> 

With  all  men  they  could  not  live  in  peace.  Rev.  Messrs. 
McMullan,  Dixon  and  Cree,  as  we  have  seen,  had,  on  the  12th 
of  January,  1803,  been  constituted  into  a  presbytery,  which 
received  the  name.  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of 
the  Carolinas,  the  following  resolution  was  unanimousl}' 
adopted : 

Whekeas,  Rev.  Peter  McMullan  and  William  Dixon  have  declined  the  com- 
munion of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  a  disorderly,  schismatical  and 
scandalous  manner,  and  the  reasons  accompanying  their  declinature  are,  some 
of  them,  false,  and  others  frivolous  ;  therefore. 

Eesolveil,  That  they  be  suspended  from  the  ofSce  of  the  holy  ministry,  and  be 
cited  before  the  bar  of  the  Synod  at  their  next  meeting. 

Mr.  McMullan  had  been  suspended,  as  is  stated  elsewhere, 
by  the  Second  Presbytery,  on  the  13th  of  October,  1801,  but 
was  restored  on  the  15th  of  April,  1802.  iMessrs.  JMcMullan 
and  Dixon  were  regularly  cited  to  appear  before  the  Synod  y 
but  to  these  citations  they  paid  no  attention  whatever.  The 
matter  continued  to  be  the  only  vexing  question  before  the 


298  HISTORY    OF    THE 

S3'nod  for  the  next  two  meetings.  In  April,  1805,  Messrs. 
McMullan  and  Dixon  were  solemnly  deposed  from  the  gospel 
ministry.  This,  however,  did  not  end  the  matter.  A  very 
large  number  of  the  Societies  soon  became  disaffected  towards 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  and  in  a  ver\'  few  years  sev- 
eral congregations  Avere  divided — part  remaining  in  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church,  and  part  withdrawing  from  that  church 
iind  joining  the  Associate  Church.  These  divisions  were  not 
unattended  with  bitter  feelings,  vexatious  words  and  evil  con- 
sequences. The  Societies,  at  first  very  weak,  were,  by  these 
strifes,  made  weaker.  God,  no  doubt,  overruled  the  whole  of 
this  affair  for  his  own  glory  and  the  good  of  his  people;  but 
it  was  certainly  one  of  those  instances  in  which  He  brings 
light  out  of  darkness,  order  out  of  confusion  and  good  out  of 
evil. 

The  whole  trouble  grew  out  of  the  unministerial,  not  to  say 
sinful,  conduct  of  Messrs.  McMullan  and  Dixon.  So  far  as 
mortals  can  see,  there  was  no  other  cause  for  the  rupture  in  the 
Associate  Reformed  Societies ;  neither  was  there  any  other 
ground  for  the  organization  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the 
Carolinas. 

These  two  denominations,  instead  of  stimulating  each  other 
to  greater  diligence,  and  provoking  each  other  to  deeds  of 
"  charity  which  thinketh  no  evil,"  wasted  their  time  and  ex- 
hausted their  strength  in  useless  attempts  to  crush  each  other's 
supposed  erroneous  opinions  on  certain  points  out  of  existence. 
Both  grew,  but  their  growth  was  comparatively  slow.  No 
one,  except  themselves,  could  discover  their  differences.  The 
Associate  Reformed  people  could  only  say  Sibboleth,  while 
the  Associates  thought  they  could  say  distinctl}'  Shibboleth  ;  but 
both  meant  the  same  thing.  In  all  their  opinions  and  prac- 
tices, both  were  genuine  Seceders  to  the  core.  Both  claimed 
to  be  scrupulous  followers  of  Boston  and  the  Erskines. 

So  far  as  an3'thing  to  the  contrary  is  known,  all — certainly 
the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  Seceders,  both  Anti-Burgh- 
ers and  Burghers,  in  the  South — entered  into  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  when  the  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and 
Georgia  was  organized.  A  few,  it  is  admitted,  entered  with 
reluctance  the  Union  Church,  as  it  was  called  ;  but  these  were 
graduall}'  becoming  attached   to  its  principles  and  practices. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  299 

Had  not  the  difficulty  sprung  u|»  with  Mr.  McMullan,  the 
probability  is  that  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas 
would  never  have  had  an  existence. 

Had  all  the  Eeformed  Presbyterians  and  all  the  Associates 
in  the  South  united  at  the  close  of  the  last  century,  forgotten 
their  differences  and  worked  harmoniously  together,  it  is  but 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  particular  form  of  Presbyterian- 
ism  which  they  all  heartily  embrace,  and  those  practices  which 
they  all  loved  and  clung  to  would  have  become  the  prevailing 
form  of  Christianity  all  over  the  sections  of  country  in  which 
they  first  settled.  This  they  did  not  do.  They  quarreled 
among  themselves,  and  the  rich  inheritance  which  God  gave 
them  rapidly  passed  largely  into  the  possession  of  other  Chris- 
tian denominations.  No  one  can  blame  other  denominations 
for  cultivating  the  field  which  the  Associates,  Associate  Re- 
formed and  Reformed  Presbj-terians,  in  their  divided  state, 
eould  not  cultivate. 

There  is  no  ground  for  a  belief  that  they  diflered  on  any 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  it  is  abso- 
lutely certain  that  in  their  form  of  church  government  and 
modes  of  worship,  they  were  rigidly  and  strictlj^  identical. 
As  Christians,  there  was  nothing  to  keep  them  from  uniting  ; 
but  their  Seceder  and  Covenanter  prejudices  kept  them  at  arm's 
length  from  each  other. 

We  dare  not  lay  the  whole  blame  of  this  division  exclusively 
on  any  one  of  these  three  denominations.  Xo  doubt  they  were 
all  to  blame.  Like  the  rest  of  the  human  family,  they  were 
but  men — short-sighted  men.  The  reasons  which  kept  all  the 
Reformed  Presbyterians,  and  all  the  Associate  Presbyterians 
from  uniting,  in  the  formation  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  have  not  as  yet  been  discovered.  Probabl}^  some  good 
and  valid  reasons  did  exist ;  but  if  so  they  are  among  the 
secret  things  which  belong  only  to  God.  For  the  organization 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  there  was  no 
proper  reason.  It  had  its  beginning,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the 
waywardness  and  disobedience  of  Messrs.  McMullan  and  Dixon. 
The  Associate  Presbytery  of  Chartiers,  by  whose  authority  the 
organization  was  eft'ected,  and  the  good  men.  Dr.  John  Ander- 
son and  Rev.  William  Wilson,  who  officiated  on  the  occasion, 
were  in  no  way  to  be  blamed,  unless  it  be  that  they  were  over- 


300  HISTORY    OF    THE 

zealous  for  their  denomination.  The  fjicts  in  the  case  they 
seem  never  to  have  fnll}^  nnderstood.  This  division,  in  the 
good  providence  of  God,  as  the  sequel  Avill  show,  has  been 
healed,  and  by  many  of  the  ^'ounger  ministers  and  members  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  it  is  scarcely 
known  that  there  was  once  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod  a  presbytery  which  was  called  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas. 

In  May,  1831,  the  Associate  Synod  of  Korth  America  met  in 
Cannonsburg,  Pa.  At  this  meeting  of  the  Synod  a  series  of 
resolutions  were  adopted  in  which  all  the  members  of  the  As- 
sociate Church  who  owned  slaves  were  required  to  set  their 
slaves  free.  At  that  time  there  were  nine  presbyteries  in  con- 
nection with  the  Associate  Synod,  and  but  one — the  Presbytery 
of  the  Carolinas — particularly  implicated  with  the  institution 
of  slavery.  There  were  a  few  slave-holders  in  some  of  the 
other  presbyteries,  but  not  man}'.  Such  being  the  case,  the 
resolutions  aifected  only  the  members  of  this  presbytery.  The 
resolutions  were  protested  against  b}^  six  members  of  the  Synod, 
three  of  whom  were  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  the  Caroli- 
nas ;  one  was  a  member  of  the  j'resbytery  of  Miami  ;  and  two 
were  members  of  the  Presbj-tery  of  Chartiers. 

By  the  resolutions,  the  members  of  the  Associate  Church, 
holding  slaves,  were  not  only  required  to  free  their  slaves,  but 
they  were  required  to  free  them  forthwith.  The  protesters  did 
not  object  to  the  law  requiring  the  slaves  to  be  set  free;  but, 
for  a  number  of  reasons,  they  objected  to  the  precipitant  man- 
ner in  which  it  Avas  proposed  to  enforce  the  law.  Very  many 
3'ears  previous  to  this  time,  the  Associate  Synod  had  adopted 
anti-slavery  resolutions.  In  fact,  the  Associate  Synod  was,  from 
its  earliest  existence,  decidedly  and  avowed!}-  opposed  to 
slavery. 

In  1831,  when  the  resolutions  referred  to  above  weve  adopted 
there  were,  in  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas,  eight 
ministers  and  twenty-four  congregations.  Rev.  Andrew  Heron, 
J).  D.,  was  pastor  of  Ebenezer,  Timber  Ridge  and  Broad  Creek, 
in  Rockbridge  county,  Ya.  Rev.  John  Wallace  was  pastor  of 
ISTew  Lebanon,  Monroe  county,  Va.  Rev.  Thomas  Ketchin 
was  pastor  of  Shiloh,  in  Lancaster  county,  and  Xeely's  Creek, 
in  York  county,  S.  C.     Rev.  Abraham  Anderson,  D.  D.,  Avas 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  301 

pastor  of  Steele  Creek  and  Bethaii}'  (now  Back  Creek),  in 
Mecklenburg  county,  X.  C.  Rev.  James  Lyle  was  pastor  of 
Smyrna,  in  Chester,  and  Little  E-iver  and  Bethel  (Winnsboro), 
in  Fairfield  county,  S.  C.  Rev.  W.  M.  McElmee,  D.  D.,  was 
pastor  of  Sharon  and  Tirzah,  in  York  county,  S.  C.  Rev. 
Joseph  Banks  was  pastor-elect  of  Knob  Creek  and  Pisgah,  in 
Xorth  Carolina,  and  Bethany  and  Sardis,  in  South  Carolina. 
Rev.  AVilliam  Dixon  being  superannuated,  was  without  a 
charge. 

The  vacancies  in  connection  with  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  the  Carolinas,  in  1831,  were  Virgin  Springs,  New  Stirling, 
Cambridge,  Gilead,  McGailiard's,  Cochran's  Vale,  Elgin  and 
Piedmont,  with  some  weak  missionar}'  stations. 

From  1831,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  began 
to  decline  rapidly.  Rev.  Messrs.  Heron,  Anderson,  Wallace, 
McElwee  and  Banks,  being  unable  to  enforce  the  Act  of  Synod, 
left  their  cono;reo;ations  and  went  North,  On  the  28th  of 
Afarch,  1832,  Rev.  Thomas  Ketchin  and  the  congregations  of 
Shiloh  and  Neely's  Creek  tendered  their  declinature  to  the  As- 
sociate Presbyter}'  of  the  Carolinas.  The  reasons  which  the3' 
assigned  for  taking"  this  course  were  :  F'irst,  Because,  in  pass- 
ing the  Act,  the  Synod  has  unscripturally  interfered  in  civil 
matters.  Second,  The  Act  of  the  Synod  sowed  the  seeds  of 
rebellion  in  the  civil  community  in  which  Mr.  Ketchin  and 
the  members  of  his  charge  dwell.  For  these  and  other  similar 
reasons,  Mr.  Ketchin  and  his  congregations  withdrew  from  the 
Associate  Church. 

It  was  not  long  until  it  was  discovered  that  seyeral  other 
congregations,  whose  pastors  had  gone  ott"  and  left  them,  were 
ready  to  join  with  Mr.  Ketchin  and  his  pastoral  charge  in  con- 
ferring with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  with  reference  to 
a  union.  The  object  being  agreeable  to  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  a  committee,  appointed  by  that  church,  met  a  similar 
committee  appointed  by  the  Associate  Church  at  Shiloh,  in 
February,  1833. 

There  were  present,  from  the  First  Presbytery  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod  of  the  South,  Rev.  Isaac  Grier,  D.  D.,  and 
ruling  elders  Robert  Nelson  and  Alexander  Nisbet.  The  dele- 
gates from  the  Associate  Church  were  Rev.  Thomas  Ketchin 
and   Mr.  William   Reid,  from  Shiloh  ;  John  Campbell,  from 


302  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Xeely's  Creek ;    John  ^IcEhvee,  from   Bethany  ;    John   Falls^ 
from  Pisgah  ;  and  Charles  Mclhvain,  from  Tirzah. 

When  tlie  parties  came  face  to  face,  tliey  readily  agreed 
on  every  point,  or  were  willing  to  forbear  in  love  with  respect 
to  those  points  in  which  they  could  not  agree.  But  for  the 
apparent  precipitancy'  of  the  matter,  the  union  would  have 
heen  formally  consummated  at  the  first  meeting.  Prudently, 
they  agreed  to  meet  again  at  Shiloh  on  the  10th  of  July. 

At  the  second  meeting  the  delegates  from  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  were  Rev.  Messrs.  "Warren  Henniken  and 
Isaac  Grier,  D.  D.,  and  ruling  elders  Alexander  ^Scott,  Robert  Fee 
and  James  Irvine.  The  delegates  from  the  Associate  Church 
were  Rev.  Thomas  Ketchin,  Messrs.  William  Reid,  William 
Campbell,  Samuel  Falkner  and  Charles  Mclhvain. 

The  union  was  consummated  readil}'^  and  good  grew  out  of 
it  to  all  concerned.  The  churches  which  came  with  Rev.  Mr. 
Ketchin  into  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  were  Shiloh,  in 
Lancaster  county,  S.  C. ;  Neely's  Creek,  Tirzah,  Sharon  and 
Bethany,  in  York  county,  S.  C. ;  Sardis,  in  Union  county,  S.  C. ;. 
and  Pisgah  and  Bethany  (now  Back  Creek),  in  Xorth  Carolina. 
For  reasons  which  need  not  be  mentioned,  the  congregation  of 
Xecly's  Creek  retraced  its  steps  and  remained  nominally  in 
connection  with  the  vVssociate  Presbytery  until  1844. 

Rev.  James  Lyle  was  the  only  pastor  left  in  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  the  C/arolinas.  The  presbytery  continued  to 
exist  until  April,  1844,  when  its  ministers  and  nearly  all  of  its 
members  united  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
South. 

As  a  separate  and  distinct  organization  the  usefulness  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  measurably  ceased  after 
1831.  The  congregations  began  to  dwindle  down,  and  the 
prospects  were  intensely  gloomy.  The  subject  of  slavery  began 
to  be  the  absorbing  question  in  the  country,  both  politically 
and  ecclesiasticall}'. 

It  is  probable  that  the  majority  of  those  in  connection  with 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas,  in  183 i,  had  con- 
scientious scruples  about  the  moral  right  of  one  man  to  hold 
anotlier  man  in  a  state  of  absolute  slavery.  It  is  certain  that 
three  of  the  pastors — McElwee,  Heron  and  Anderson — declared 
at  the  time  that  "  slavery  is  clearly  condemned  by  the  law  of 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  303: 

God."  This  doctrine  they  taught  their  people,  from  the  pulpit 
and  around  the  hreside,  and  it  is  true  be3'ond  a  doubt  that 
some  of  their  people  accepted  their  teachings  on  this  subject^ 
as  founded  upon  and  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures.  It  is  also 
true  that  perhaps  more  than  one-half — certainly  more  than  one- 
half  in  some  congregations — were  slave-holders.  Many  of  those 
slave-holders,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  were  by  no  means  the 
advocates  of  the  institution.  They  regarded  it  as  an  evil  which 
hud  been  inflicted  upon  the  country  by  the  British  government 
during  the  colonial  times,  and  perpetuated  by  circumstances 
over  which,  in  many  instances,  they  had  no  control. 

The  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  people,  in  connection  with 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Oarolinas,  was  such,  or  at  least 
they  thought  they  were  such,  that  they  could  not  liberate  their 
slaves  immediately.  For  many  years  both  pastors  and  people 
had  been  diligent  in  bringing  up  their  slaves  in  "the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord."'  Many  of  these  slaves  were  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  in  good  and  regular  standing.  In  fact,  in 
some  of  the  congregations  more  than  one-half  the  regular  wor- 
shippers were  negro  slaves.  In  Mr.  Heron's  charge,  in  1831^ 
there  were  ninety-seven  slaves ;  of  these,  one-half,  or  forty- 
nine,  had  been  taught  to  read  ;  six  were  members  of  the  church  ; 
and  sixty-four  worshipped  regularly  with  their  masters.  In 
Mr.  Ketchin's  charge  there  were  three  hundred  and  sixty-five 
slaves.  Of  these  the  overwhelming  majorit}' — all  but  about 
sixty^had  been  taught  to  read,  and  man^^  were  members  of 
the  church,  and  all  worshipped  with  their  masters.  In  Mr. 
Anderson's  charge  there  were  two  hundred  and  five  slaves. 
Sixty-nine  of  these  could  read  ;  eight  were  members  of  the 
church  ;  and  one  hundred  and  fifty-seven  were  constantly  being^ 
instructed  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion. In  the  charge  of  ]\Ir.  McElwee  there  were  one  hundred 
and  fifty-seven  slaves,  and  in  the  old  charge  of  Mr.  Dixon  there 
were  about  the  same  number.  In  both  of  these  charges  all, 
or  nearly  all,  the  slaves  were  taught  to  read,  and  a  very  large 
proportion  of  them  sat  down  at  the  same  communion  table  with 
their  masters,  and  with  them  celebrated  the  death  of  Jesuit 
Christ. 

It  was  regarded  impossible,  under  the  circumstances,  to  free 
the  slaves  '•  immediately."     The  pastors  having  in  good  faith 


304  HISTORY    OF    THE 

made  the  effort  to  cany  out  tlie  law  of  the  church,  hut  failing, 
demitted  their  charges  and  -went  to  regions  of  country  in  which 
the  institution  of  slaver}^  did  not  exist. 

It  is  probable  that  had  the  Associate  Synod  not  been  so 
hasty  and  rash  in  their  efforts  to  free  the  Presbytery  of  the 
Carolinas  of  slavery,  that  in  due  time  most  of  those  in  con- 
nection with  the  presbytery  would  have  manumitted  their 
slaves.  The  Synod  thought  and  acted  differently.  The  result 
was  that  nearly  all  the  people  in  connection  with  the  presby- 
tery soon  ceased  to  have  any  organic  connection  with  the 
Synod.  The  members  generall}-  adojited  the  opinions  concern- 
ing slavery  which  were  held  by  the  Associate  Eeformed  Church, 
and  with  that  denomination  coalesced  or  united. 

For  a  number  of  years  previous  to  that  union,  it  became  evi- 
dent to  the  leading  members  of  the  Associate  Presbyter}^  of 
the  Carolinas  that  it  was  only  a  matter  of  time  when  many  of 
the  small  societies  under  their  care  would  perish,  not  only  to 
the  Associate  Presbytery,  but  also  to  Christianity,  unless  a 
union  was  formed  with  the  Associate  Eeformed  Church.  Ne- 
gotiations were  begun  and  carried  on  in  the  spirit  of  brotherly 
love,  and  happily  consummated  at  Xew  Perth,  N.  C,  on  the 
15th  of  April,  1844.  Bj-  the  authoritj^  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod,  the  union  was  formally  consummated  by  the 
First  Presb3'ter3\  The  following  is  the  minute  of  the  transac- 
tion : 

Whereas.  The  First  Associate  Reformed  Presbytery  and  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  the  Carolinas  have  been  for  some  time  negotiating  with  a  view  to 
union,  and  have  concluded  these  negotiations  on  terms  hitherto  expressed,  being 
mutually  satisfactory  and  approved  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
South  ;  be  it,  therefore. 

Resolved.  That  this  union  be  now  consummated  (the  other  presbytery  being 
present)  by  the  two  presbyteries  extending  to  each  other  the  right  hand  of  fel- 
lowship; this  being  the  formal  act  by  which  the  two  bodies  coalesce. 

Preparatory  to  carrying  this  resolution  into  effect,  Mr.  Ketchin  invoked  the 
divine  blessing  by  prayer,  after  which  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  was  extended. 
A  part  of  the  one  hundred  and  second  psalm  was  then  sung,  and  thanksgiving 
to  God  for  the  present  signal  blessing  by  Mr.  Thompson,  of  Virginia. 

The  names  of  Horatio  Thompson  and  John  Patrick,  minis- 
ters, and  John  Q.  Cochran,  John  Young  and  James  McCa}', 
elders,  Avere  added  to  the  roll  of  the  First  Presbyteiy  of  the 
Associate  Eeformed  Synod  of  the  South. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  305 

From  the  time  of  its  organization,  in  January,  1803,  to  the 
time  of  its  union  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  in 
April,  1844 — a  period  of  a  little  more  than  forty-one  jeRvs — 
there  were  in  connection  with  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the 
Carolinas  fourteen  ministers,  viz.:  Abraham  Anderson,  Joseph 
Banks.  John  Cree,  AVilliam  Dixon,  Andrew  Heron,  Thomas 
Ketchin,  James  Lyle,  William  Meek  McElwee,  Peter  McMul- 
lau,  John  Mushat,  John  Patrick,  James  Pringle,  John  Wallace 
and  Archibald  AVhyte.  All  these  were  men  of  more  than  or- 
dinary attainments  and  several  of  them  were  among  the  first 
pulpit  orators  of  their  day.  With  one  or  two  exceptions  they 
were  men  of  exemplary  piety.  That  they  accomplished,  in 
their  isolated  condition,  some  good  no  one  will  doubt  ;  but  the 
good  done  was  certainly  little.  It  required  a  continual  effort 
to  perpetuate  mere  crotchets. 


21 


306  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  XXr. 

SLOW  GROWTH  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  Carolinas— Causes 
Emigration  and  Withdrawals  in  order  to  Join  the  Associates — Number  of 
Communicants  in  1803 — Associate  Congregations  all  in  First  Presbytery — 
Strength  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas — Its  Rapid  Growth  at 
First — Anti-Burghers  All  Join  It — Growth  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church — 
Number  of  Presbyteries  in  1804 — General  Synod  Organized — Its  Defects — 
Want  of  Harmony  among  the  Members — Synods  of  Scioto  and  the  Carolinas 
Become  Dissatisfied — Lexington  Academy — Memorial  in  its  Behalf — Memo- 
rial Shows  a  Want  of  Confidence  in  the  Theological  Seminary — Some  En- 
vious— John  Mason's  Letters — His  Talents — The  Mason-Matthews  and  Clark 
Difficulty— Settled  to  the  Satisfaction  of  No  One— Synod  of  Scioto  With- 
draws and  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  Requests  to  be  Allowed  to  Become  In- 
dependent— The  Request  Granted — Synod  of  the  South  Organized — Its  Plat- 
form the  Constitution  as  Adopted  in  1791)-  -Members  Constituting  the  Synod 
of  the  South — ^No  Deaths  in  Nineteen  Years. 

The  growth  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  tlie  Caro- 
linas, for  a  number  of  years,  was  scarcely  perceptible.  The  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  ministers,  in  a  period  of  nineteen  years, 
was  only  six,  and  the  increase  in  the  number  of  communicants 
was  about  in  the  same  ratio.  In  1803  there  were  in  the  Synod 
seven  ordained  ministers,  and  in  1822  there  were  only  eleven. 
The  number  of  communicants  in  1803  was  certainly  more  than 
one  thousand,  and  perhaps  less  than  two  thousand.  The  num- 
ber of  communicants  in  the  pastoral  charges  in  the  First  Pres- 
bytery, including  Indian  Creek,  Cannon  Creek  and  Prosperity, 
in  the  Second  Presbytery,  amounted  to  eight  hundred  and  fifty, 
and  it  is  probable  that  the  number  of  communicants  in  the 
settled  congregations  in  the  Second  Presbytery,  and  in  the  va- 
cant congregations  in  both  presbyteries,  were,  at  least,  one 
thousand.  This  number  is  certainly  not  too  large,  since,  in 
Cedar  Spring  and  Long  Cane  congregations  there  were,  in  1801, 
two  hundred  and  sixty  families  and  five  hundred  and  twenty 
communicants.  The  other  pastoral  charges  in  the  Second  Pres- 
bytery, and  the  vacancies  in  both  presbyteries  were  w^eak. 

The  membership  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
Carolinas,  at  the  time  of  its  organization,  may  be  safely  esti- 
mated at  nineteen  hundred. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  307 

Some  of  the  congregations  seem  to  have  decreased  rapidly 
for  a  few  years,  and  after  that  to  have  increased  as  rapidly. 
As  an  example  of  this  fluctuation,  it  may  be  stated  that  in 
1804  the  number  of  communicants  in  Mr.  Hemphill's  charge 
was  three  hundred  and  fifteen,  and  in  1807  the  number  was 
only  two  hundred  and  eighty.  The  number  of  communicants 
in  this  same  charge  was,  in  a  few  years  afterwards,  more  than 
four  hundred. 

For  a  few  years  immediately  after  the  organization  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas,  and  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  the  people  were  in  a  very  un- 
settled condition.  In  some  cases  congregations  divided — ^part 
withdrawing:  from  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  and  con- 
necting  with  the  Associate  Church.  In  other  instances,  whole 
cono-resrations  withdrew  from  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
and  connected  with  the  Associate  Church. 

The  congregations  under  the  pastoral  care  of  Rev.  William 
Dixon  went  with  him  to  the  Associate  Church,  and  the  pas- 
toral charo;e  of  Rev.  A\^illiam  Blackstock,  and  several  other 
single  congregations  were  divided  and  nearly  broken  up.  All 
these  divisions  occurred  in  the  congregations  within  the  terri- 
torial limits  of  the  First  Presbytery.  So  far  as  is  known,  no 
Associate  congregation  was  ever  organized  in  the  territory 
occupied  by  the  Second  Presbytery.  There  were  at  a  late  date,, 
and  perhaps  as  early  as  1803,  a  few  Associate  families  in 
Georgia,  Alabama  and  Tennessee  which  were  occasionally  vis- 
ited by  Associate  ministers ;  but  so  far  as  is  known,  none  of 
these  were  organized  into  congregations  by  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  the  Carolinas. 

Although  there  were  no  Associate  congregations  organized 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Second  Presbytery,  the  people  were 
not  entirely  harmonious.  There  were  a  few  persons  who  did 
not  unite  heartily  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  Mr. 
McMullan  continued  to  preach  in  the  neighborhood  of  Due 
West — generally  in  his  own  house — until  1806,  when  he  was 
suspended  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas. 

It  is  probable  that  had  Mr.  McMullan  abandoned  his  intem- 
perate habits  after  the  organization  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  the  Carolinas,  that  he  would  have  won  back  the  affections 
of  bis  former  charge,  and  they  as  a  whole,  or  at  least  a  ma- 


308  HISTORY    OF    THE 

joi'ity  of  tljcm,  would  have  followed  him  into  the  Associate 
Church.  As  it  was,  the  church  at  Due  West  remained  vacant 
for  nearly  tliirty  years. 

The  numher  of  those  adhering  to  Messrs.  McMullan  and 
Dixon,  at  first,  were  very  few — not  more  than  three  hundred. 
The  whole  numher  of  coraraunicants  at  any  one  time  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Associate  Preshytery  of  the  Carolinas  did  not 
amount  to  more  than  fifteen  hundred.  In  1830 — the  most 
flourishing  period  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  tlie  Caro- 
linas— there  were  in  its  seven  pastoral  charges  only  about  one 
thousand  communicants,  and  the  vacancies,  with  one  or  two 
exceptions,  were  very  small. 

The  growth  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas 
was  very  considerable  during  the  first  five  or  six  years  of  its 
existence.  This  was  the  result  of  two  causes.  The  one  cause 
was  the  number  of  those  who  left  the  Associate  Reformed 
'Church  and  joined  it.  The  other  was  that  nearly  all  the  Anti- 
Burgliers  who  came  into  the  country  united  with  the  Associate 
rather  than  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 

This  Avas  the  case  in  every  section  of  America.  The  Anti- 
Burgher  branch  of  the  Secession  Church,  in  both  Scotland  and 
Iieland  regarded  with  decided  disapprobation  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church.  Few  of  its  members  coming  to  America 
joined  it.  Of  the  donations  made  to  establish  the  Associate 
Reformed  Theological  Seminary,  nearly  all  were  obtained  from 
Burghers.  Of  the  Anti-Burghers,  it  may  be  said  they  were 
generally  opposed  to  all  negotiations  having  a  union  in  view, 
and  opposed  to  unions  when  formed.  Anti-Burgher  ministers 
rarely  ever  coalesced  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 

In  addition  to  the  causes  already  mentioned,  the  growth  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  w^as  greatly  retarded 
by  emigration.  Previous  to  the  organization  of  the  Synod  of  the 
Carolinas,  the  people  in  connection  with  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  began  to  emigrate  to  the  north-western  States.  This 
drain  was  kept  up  for  fully  thirty  years.  By  it  the  numerical 
strength  of  the  Associate  ReformecV  Synod  of  the  Carolinas 
was,  at  one  time,  reduced  below  what  it  was  when  the  organi- 
zation was  effected. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  309 

The  history  of  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  is  necessarily  in- 
volved in  the  history  of  the  General  S3'nod  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church.  That  we  may  be  enabled  to  understand 
the  former  it  will  l)e  necessary  to  repeat  some  things  which 
have  already  been  related  concerning  the  history  of  the  latter. 

jS'otwithstanding  the  many  difficulties  with  which  it  had  to 
contend,  the  growth  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  for  the 
first  twenty  years,  was  rapid  and  steady.  Three  presbyteries 
during  that  time  had  grown  into  eight,  and  the  number  of 
her  ministers  and  members  had  been  more  than  doubled.  As 
has  been  stated  elsewhere,  in  1801  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  took  the  initiatory  steps  with  reference  to  forming  a 
General  Synod.  In  1804,  on  the  30th  of  May,  tlie  General 
Synod  met  and  was  regularly  constituted. 

For  several  years  the  church  enjoyed  peace  and  prosperity. 
It  was  deliberately  said  that  the  General  S\niod  "was  founded 
in  pride  and  perished  in  plunder."  It  is  certain  that  it  perished 
in  plunder ;  but  it  is  scarcely  correct — certain!}^  not  charitable — 
to  say,  without  some  qualification,  that  it  was  founded  in  pride. 
Surely  the  fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  were  not 
wholly  prompted  by  pride  to  organize  the  General  Synod. 
There  was  a  defect,  it  is  readily  admitted,  in  the  General 
Synod ;  but  it  is  not  easy  to  state  correctly  in  few  words  in 
what  that  defect  consisted.  The  defect  was  similar  to  that 
which  existed  in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land in  the  time  of  Boston  and  the  Erskines.  It  was  a  defect 
which  may  exist  in  any  representative  body.  The  defect  was 
not  in  the  system,  but  in  a  wrong  application  or  abuse  of  the 
principles  involved  in  that  system. 

The  Associate  Reformed  Church  was  spread  over  a  large  ex- 
tent of  territory.  The  larger  number  of  the  members  of  the 
denomination  were  in  the  States  of  New  York  and  Pennsyl- 
vania. In  these  Skites  were  located  the  oldest  and  wealthiest 
churches-  The  pastors  of  these  churches  claimed  a  kind  of 
primogenial  right  to  have  under  their  control  all  the  institu- 
tions of  the  denomination. 

It  matters  not  whethe^r  this  was  actually  the  case,  or  whether 
it  \yas  a  mere  suspicion  on  the  part  of  others.  It  is  true  be- 
yond a  doubt  that 'the  members  of  the  Synods  of  Scioto  and 
the  Carolinas  began,  at  a  very  early  period  to  show  signs  that 


310  HISTORY    OF    THE 

they  .were  not  satislied  Avith  the  prospects.  It  is  positive!}"  as- 
serted that  the  resolution  to  divide  the  old  Synod  into  two  or 
more  synods  and  form  a  General  Synod  was  unanimous.  At 
that  meeting  (in  1801)  there  were  only  a  few  representatives 
present  from  that  portion  of  tlie  denomination  west  of  the  Al- 
leghany mountains,  and  but  one  from  ttie  Presbyteries  of  the 
Carolinas  and  Georgia. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Synod,  "a  memorial 
from  the  Presbytery  of  Kentucky,  on  the  subject  of  the  Lex- 
ington Aeadem}',  was  read,  with  an  extract  from  the  minutes 
of  said  presbytery,  and  an  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the 
Synod  of  Scioto.  The  object  of  this  paper  was  to  prevail  upon 
the  General  Sj-nod  to  take  said  academy  under  their  patronage; 
to  grant  to  it  one-half  of  the  books  belonging  to  the  Theologi- 
cal library  ;  to  appropriate  to  its  use  all  the  money  to  be  col- 
lected in  the  future  within  the  bounds  of  the  Synod  of  Scioto  ; 
and  to  allow  the  trustees  to  lay  before  the  General  Synod,  at 
every  meeting,  an  account  of  the  said  academy." 

To  this  memorial  the  General  Synod  replied  that  thej^  could 
not,  "  consistently,  with  good  faith,  divide  the  mone3'3  con- 
tributed expressly  for  the  Seminary,  nor  the  books  bought  with 
the  money." 

The  Synod  of  Scioto  was,  however,  allowed  to  retain  the 
contributions  made  by  its  own  members  to  the  public  fund 
within  its  bounds,  for  the  next  three  years,  and  devote  those 
contributions  to  the  maintenance  of  Lexington  Academy. 

In  1806  the  trustees  of  Lexington  Academy  petitioned  the 
General  Sjmod  for  a  continuance  of  the  appropriation  ;  "  and 
that  Mr.  William  Wallace,  a  student  of  divinity,  be  exempt 
from  a  compliance  with  the  Act  relative  to  the  Theological 
Seminary,  so  far  as  not  to  attend  on  the  Professor." 

These  memorials  and  petitions  clearly  indicated  that  there 
was  not  concert  of  action  among  the  Synods  composing  the 
General  Synod.  It  is  as  clear  as  the  noon-day  sun  that  what- 
ever aid  was  rendered  the  Lexington  Academy  was  just  so 
much  support  withheld,  from  the  contemplated  theological 
seminary.  The  denomination  was,  tit  the  time,  unable  to 
equip  fully  one  seminary,  much  less  two.  For  more  than  .ten 
3'ears  the  church  had  been  exerting  itself  to  provide  the  means 
by  which  its  candidates  for  the  ministry  might  be  thoroughly 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  311 

prepared  for  their  work.  This,  on  account  of  their  poverty,  they 
were  unable  to  accomplish.  Generous  friends  in  Great  Britain 
came  to  their  aid  and  contributed,  "  on  account  of  the  Synod, 
six  thousand  four  hundred  and  sixty-three  dollars."  Of  this 
amount,  the  sum  of  five  thousand  one  hundred  and  forty -seven 
dollars  was  contributed  for  "  the  sole  use  of  the  theological 
seminary."  By  far  the  larger  part  of  this  amount  Avas,  by 
direction  of  the  Synod,  expended  in  the  purchase  of  books  for 
the  use  of  the  theological  seminar^'.  Had  the  General  Synod 
undertaken  to  divide  the  books  thus  obtained,  they  would  have 
acted  ill  bad  faith  towards  the  donors. 

It  is  difficult  to  discover  the  real  cause  or  causes  which  led 
to  the  sending  up  of  the  memorial  and  petition  already  men- 
tioned, and  in  such  matters  it  is  dangerous  to  conjecture.  It 
may,  however,  be  safely  said  that  there  vvere  in  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  at  the  time  of  the  founding  of  the  theologi- 
cal seminary,  some  persons  who  were  more  than  suspicious  that 
some  of  the  acknowledged  leaders  in  the  church  were  bent  on 
removing  the  old  landmarks.  There  were  others  who,  no 
doubt,  were  troubled  with  a  spirit  of  env^'. 

In  1798,  Rev.  John  M.  Mason  published  a  series  of  letters 
on  "  Frequent  Communion  and  Sacramental  Fasts  and  Thanks- 
givings." Many  good  people  in  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  began  to  regard  Mr.  Mason  with  suspicion,  on  account 
of  the  sentiments  expressed  in  these  letters.  By  these  persons 
he  was  regarded  as  an  innovator. 

In  addition  to  this,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  extraordinary  talents 
possessed  by  Mr.  Mason,  and  the  almost  unlimited  influence  he 
exerted  in  the  denomination,  rendered  him  an  object  of  envy. 
How  much  these  things  had  to  do  in  prompting  the  memorial 
and  petition  which  came  up  from  the  Presbytery  of  Kentucky 
in  regard  to  the  Lexington  Academy,  it  will  not  be  undertaken 
to  say.  ]!*^o  matter  what  was  the  cause,  nor  whether  it  was  a 
sufficient  cause,  it  is  a  fact  that  from  its  very  beginning  there 
was  a  want  of  entire  harmony  and  implicit  confidence  among 
the  members  of  General  Synod. 

The  Synods  of  Scioto  and  the  Carolinas  were  not  entirely 
satisfied ;  neither  were  all  the  members  of  the  other  two  Syn- 
ods satisfied.  Xotwithstanding  this  fact,  the  General  Synod 
had  a  comparatively  prosperous  and  harmonious  existence  for 
about  six  years. 


312  HISTORY    OF    THE 

In  May,  1811,  the  case  of  Messrs.  Mason,  Matthews  and 
Clarke  came  up  for  adjudication.  As  all  the  circumstances  con- 
nected with  that  case,  and  the  decision  of  the  General  Synod, 
have  been  minutely  related  elsewhere,  they  need  not  be  re- 
peated liere.  From  that  day  on  to  the  hour  of  its  final  disso- 
lution, the  General  Synod  was  regarded  by  the  subordinate 
Synods  of  Scioto  and  the  Carolinas  as  a  mere  partisan  court. 
In  1819  the  Synod  of  Scioto  withdrew  and  declared  itself  no 
longer  subordinate  to  the  General  Synod,  and  in  1820  dissolved 
and  reconstituted  itself  as  an  independent  and  coordinate 
Sj^nod.  At  this  time  it  took  to  itself  the  name  of  "  The  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod  of  the  West.'"' 

To  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas,  at  its  meeting  at  Steele  Creek, 
on  the  2d  of  April,  1821,  the  First  Presbytery  reported  that 
"  It  is  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  this  presbytery  that  the  re- 
lation which  has  hitherto  existed  between  the  sub-Synod  of 
the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  and  the  General  Synod  should  be 
dissolved."  On  the  next  day  (April  3d),  this  report  of  the  First 
Presbytery  was  taken  into  serious  consideration,  after  which 
the  following  resolution  was  offered  by  Rev.  John  Hemphill, 
and  seconded  by  Mr.  John  ISTisbet,  ruling  elder  from  Mr.  Black- 
stock's  charge,  in  Lancaster  county,  S.  C. : 

"Whereas,  Our  distance  from  the  place  of  synodical  meeting  is  so  great  that 
it  is  altogether  impracticable  to  maintain  a  full  representation  in  General  Synod: 
And  u-hei'eas.  It  is  supposed  that  the  interests  of  truth  and  godliness  may  be 
promoted  as  successfully  in  a  state  of  separation  from  General  Synod:  there- 
fore, 

Resolved^  That be  appointed  a  committee  to  write  to  Gen- 
eral Synod  requesting  permission  to  form  ourselves  into  a  sister  coordinate 
Synod. 

The  above  resolution  was  adopted  and  the  blank  filled  by 
inserting  the  names  of  Rev.  Messrs.  John  Hemphill  and  John 
T.  Pressley.  The  committee  prepared .  a  letter,  which  was 
unanimously  approved  by  the  Synod  and  sent  to  the  General 
Synod  by  Mr.  Henry  S.  "Wilkin,  a  probationer  in  connection 
with  the  Presbytery  of  ISTew  York.  In  reply  to  this  letter,  the 
following  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  General  Synod,  on 
the  19th  of  May  following  : 

1st.  Resolved,  That  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  be  and  they  hereby  are  author- 
ized to  erect  themselves  into  a  separate  church,  if  they  continue  to  judge  the 
interests  of  the  Redeemer's  Kingdom,  in  that  quarter  of  the  country,  to  call  for 
such  a  measure. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  313 

2cJ.  Resolved,  That  Id  the  event  of  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  becoming  a  sep- 
arate sister  church,  this  Synod  will  continue  to  cherish,  as  heretofore,  a  Chris- 
tian affection  for  all  members  and  ministers  of  said  church,  and  be  ready  to 
keep  up  the  most  friendly  correspondence,  according  to  any  plan  that  may  be 
mutually  agreed  on  between  the  two  churches. 

On  the  1st  of  April,  1822,  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  met  at 
Xinsj's  Creek,  ]^e wherry  count}',  S.  C.  All  the  ministers,  ex- 
cept Mr.  Mclvnight,  were  present,  and  a  ruling  elder  from  all 
the  pastoral  charges  except  those  of  Hev.  ]^lessrs.  Eleazar  Har- 
ris and  Joseph  Lowry.  On  the  first  day,  "  It  was  moved  by 
Messrs.  John  T.  Pressley  and  Joseph  Lowry,  that  inquiry  be 
made  of  the  members  whether  they  judge*  that  the  interests  of 
the  Redeemer's  Kingdom  in  this  quarter  of  the  country  call 
for  a  separation  according  to  the  answer  given  by  the  General 
Synod  to  our  petition  on  that  subject.  The  members  were 
unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  the  present  state  of  the  Church 
justified  such  a  measure.  It  was,  therefore,  moved  by  Messrs. 
Hemphill  and  Rogers,  that  the  Synod  act  on  the  permission  of 
General  Synod,  and  agreeably  thereto  resolve  ourselves  into  an 
Independent  Co-Ordinate  Synod." 

To  this  resolution  there  was  not  a  dissenting  vote.  So  far 
as  an3'thing  to  the  contrary  appears,  the  members  were  all  of 
one  mind. 

Immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  by  which 
the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  was  erected  into  an  Independent 
and  Coordinate' S3mod,  the  following  motion  by  Revs.  John 
Hemphill  and  William  Blackstock  was  unanimously  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  this  Synod  be  hereafter  known  by  the  name  of  the  Associate 
Refoemed  Synod  of  the  South  ;  adhering  to  the  constitution  and  standards  of 
the  Associated  Reformed  Church,  in  that  sense,  in  which  they  were  received  when 
adojjted  at  Greencastle,  in  the  year  1799.  and  uniformly  acted  upon  until  the 
year  1811. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Sj^nod  of 
the  South.  This  event  took  place  thirty-two  3'ears  after  the 
organization  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbytery  of  the 
Carolinas  and  Georgia,  and  nineteen  years  subsequent  to  the 
organization  of  the  S^^nod  of  the  Carolinas.  If  the  organization 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  is  excepted,  very 
little  change  had  taken  place  in  the  general  features  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church  in  the  South  during  either  of  these 
periods.     When  the  Associate  Reformed   Presbytery  of   the 


314  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Caroliiias  was  organized,  there  were  present  and  participated 
in  the  ceremonies  connected  with  that  transaction  four  ordained 
mirtisters  and  one  probationer.  When  the  Synod  of  the  Caro- 
linas  WHS  organized,  there  were  present  seven  ordained  minis- 
ters and  two  probationers;  and  when  the  Synod  of  the  Caro- 
linas  severed  its  connection  with  the  General  Synod,  there  were 
in  connection  with  the  church  eleven  ordained  ministers.  Six 
of  tliese— James  Rogers,  "William  Blackstock,  John  Hemp- 
hill, James  McKnight,  Robert  Irwin  and  Isaac  Grier — were 
present  in  1803,  when  the  Synod  was  organized.  John  Ren- 
wick,  Joseph  Lowry,  Charles  Strong,  John  T.  Fresslev  and 
Eleazar  Harris  had  been  added  during  the  period  which  inter- 
vened between  1803  and  1822.  During  that  period  of  nineteen 
years,  not  a  single  minister  in  connection  with  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  died.  James  McGill  and 
Alexander  Porter  both  went  to  Ohio;  the  former  in  1807,  the 
latter  in  1814,  but  both  were  alive  in  1822. 

With  regard  to  the  numerical  increase  of  the  denomination 
during  the  period  that  transpired  between  tiie  years  1803  and 
1822,  it  is  impossiljle  to  speak  with  any  great  degree  of  cer- 
tainty. Onl}'  a  few  statistical  tables  of  that  period  have  come 
down  to  the  present  time,  and  these  few  are  exceedingly  de- 
fective. It  is  probable  that  the  increase  by  accessions  was  bal- 
anced, if  not  more  than  balanced,  by  the  decrease  arising  from 
emio-ration.  The  vacancies  having  the  ordinances  of  God's 
house  dispensed  to  them  only  at  long  and  irregular  intervals, 
as  was  natural,  dwindled  down  until  all  were  ready  to  perish  ; 
and  all  of  the  pastoral  charges  were  weakened  numerically  by 
emigration. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  315 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

OBJECT  THE  SYNOD  of  the  Carolinas  had  in  View  in  AYithdrawing  from  the 
General  Synod — Did  not  Design  Organizing  a  New  Denomination — Their  Con- 
stitution and  Standards — The  Basis  of  the  Union  which  Formed  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church — Westminster  Confession  of  Faith — Its  History — Westmin- 
ster Assembly — By  Whom  Called,  and  for  AVhat — Time  and  Place  of  Meeting — 
Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church — Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  Adopted  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church— Certain  Sections  Changed- 
These  all  Refer  to  the  Power  of  the  Civil  Magistrate — The  Sections  Quoted — 
Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South — Mistaken  Notions 
about  the  Withdrawal  of  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas — Slavery  had  Nothing 
to  Do  with  the  Withdrawal — Position  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of 
the  South  with  Reference  to  Slavery  in  1822 — Real  Cause  of  Separation — 
Believed  that  a  Portion  of  the  General  Synod  had  Abandoned  the  Standards 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church — Subjects  of  Controversy — Communion 
and  P.-p.Imody — The  Standards  Quoted — The  Word  "Coniniunibn,"  as  Used  in 
the  Dtandards— XXVth  and  XXVIth  Chapters  of  the  Confession— Little  Con- 
rtitution — The  Overture  Quoted — Act  to  x\mend  the  Constitution  Quoted — 
Mason's  Plea  Published — The  Grounds  Taken  in  It — Psalmody — Standards 
on  Psalmody  Quoted. 

When  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  withdrew  from  the  Gene- 
ral Synod,  it  was  not  contemplated  to  foist  upon  the  world  a 
new  Christian  denomination  ;  neither  was  it  designed  to  intro- 
duce into  the  Associate  Reformed  Clijurch  any  new  doctrines  or 
strange  practices.  On  the  contrary,  the  members  of  the  Synod 
unanimously  declared  that  it  was  their  intention  to  adhere  "to 
the  Constitution  and  standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  in  that  sense  in  which  they  were  received  when  adopt- 
ed at  Greencastle,  in  the  year  1799,  and  uniformly  acted  upon 
until  the  year  1811. '"' 

"What,  then,  it  may  be  inquired,  were  the  Constitution  and 
standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  adopted  in  1799, 
to  which  The  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  pledged 
adherence  ?  It  may  also  be  asked  :  If  the  Synod  of  the  South 
proposed  to  adhere  to  these  standards,  why  withdraw  from  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church '(  It  is  sup- 
posed that  a  clear  and  truthful  reply  to  these  two  questions 
will  exhibit  to  the  world  the  basis  of  doctrine  and  practice  upon 
which  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  has  ever  been 
endeavorino;  to  build. 


316  HISTORY    OF    THE 

When  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  was  organized,  in 
1782,  the  jSTinth  Article  in  the  basis  of  union  read  thus : 

Both  parties  ( Asr-ociate.^  and  Covenanters),  whe:!!  united,  shall  adhere  to  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith;  the  Catechisms.  Larger  and  Shorter;  the  Di- 
rectory for  Worship;  and  Propositions  Concerning  Church  Government. 

This  was  reiterated  in  the  First  Article  of  the  Little  Con- 
stitution. 

WESTMINSTER  CONFESSIOJ^  OF  FAITH. 

Of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  we  have  not  the 
space  to  say  much  ;  nor  is  it  deemed  necessary.  Without  some 
knowledge,  however,  of  that  formula  of  truth  as  accepted,  be- 
lieved and  practiced  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  the 
history  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  cannot 
be  well  understood. 

The  history  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  is  inti- 
mately and  inseparably  connected  with  nearly  every  great  na- 
tional event  which  has  transpired  in  Christendom  during  the 
last  two  hundred  and  thirty  years.  It  stands  as  the  beginning 
point  from  which  the  greatest  civil  and  ecclesiastical  revolu- 
tions the  world  ever  witnessed  are  reckoned.  It  is  the  result 
of  the  labors  of  a  body  of  divines  assembled  in  obedience  to 
the  call  of  the  English  Parliament.  The  ordinance  calling  for 
this  assembly  bears  date  June  the  12th,  1643  ;  and  July  the 
1st,  of  the  same  year,  is  named  as  the  time  for  their  meeting. 
The  assembly,  as  selected  by  the  Parliament,  consisted  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-one  divines,  ten  lords  and  twenty  com- 
moners. The  place  at  which  the}'^  were  appointed  to  meet  was 
"  Westminster,  in  the  chapel  called  King  Henry  the  Seventh's 
Chapel."  The  names  of  those  designed  to  constitute  the  assem- 
bly are  all  mentioned  in  the  ordinance.  The  divines  selected 
by  the  Parliament  represented  all  the  various  creeds  in  exist- 
ence at  that  time  in  England.  There  were  High  Church  Epis- 
copalians, with  a  strong  tendenc}'  to  Popery ;  and  Low  Church 
Episcopalians,  with  an  earnest  desire  for  more,-^'ital  godliness 
and  fewer  unscriptural  forms  and  popish  ceremonies.  There 
were  Calvinists  and  Arminians ;  Pedobaptists  and  Anabap- 
tists ;  Presbyterians,  Erastians  and  Independents. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  317 

However  coiillictiiig  might  have  been  their  views,  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  they  were  all  learned  men,  and  no  grave  charge 
damaging  to  the  moral  character  has  been  brought  against  any 
of  the  Westminster  divines.  They  were  godly  men.  The  as- 
sembly has  ever  been  called  the  Westminster  Assembly,  from 
the  place  at  which  it  met. 

On  the  1st  of  July,  1643,  the  day  mentioned  in  the  ordinance, 
the  assembly  met  in  the  Abbey  Church,  Westminster.  Sixty- 
three  clerical  members  were  present. 

Of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  members  appointed  onl}" 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five,  at  any  one  time,  appeared.  Only 
a  few  of  the  rigidly  prelatic  clergymen  ever  attended,  and  those 
who  did  took  but  little  interest  in  the  labors  of  the  assembly. 
The  prelatic  clergy  generally  sided  with  the  King,  favoring 
monarchy  and  opposing  republicanism.  Although  all  the  promi- 
nent religious  denominations  in  England  were  represented  by 
the  divines  selected  by  the  Parliament,  the  assembly  was  actu- 
ally composed  of  Presbyterians,  Independents  and  Erastians. 
It  is  not  strange  that  the  prelatic  party  did  not  attend,  since 
one  avowed  object  in  calling  the  assembly  was  to  free  the  church 
of  prelac}-. 

The  oi)jeet  for  which  this  assembly  was  called  is  plainly 
stated  in  the  ordinance  of  the  English  Parliament.  It  is  con- 
tained in  the  following  extract : 

Whereas,  amongst  the  infinite  blessings  of  Almighty  God  upon  this  nation, 
none  is,  or  can  be,  more  dear  nnto  us  than  the  purity  of  our  religion;  and  for 
that  as  yet  many  things  remain  in  the  liturgy,  discipline  and  government  of  the 
church  which  do  necessarily  require  a  further  and  more  perfect  reformation 
than  yet  hath  been  attained:  And  whereas,  it  hath  been  declared  and  resolved 
by  the  Lords  and  Commons  assembled  in  Parliament  that  the  present  church 
government,  by  archbishops,  bishops  and  their  chancellors,  commissaries,  deans 
and  chapters,  archdeacons  and  other  ecclesiastical  officers  depending  upon  the 
hierarchy,  is  evil,  and  justly  offensive  and  burdensome  to  the  kingdom,  a  great 
impediment  to  reformation  and  the  growth  of  religion;  and  that  therefore,  they 
are  resolved  that  the  same  shall  be  taken  away,  and  that  such  a  government  shall 
be  settled  in  the  church  as  may  be  most  agreeable  to  God's  Holy  Word,  and 
most  apt  to  procu  '  and  preserve  the  peace  of  the  church  at  home,  and  nearer 
agreement  with  the  Church  of  Scotland  and  other  Reformed  Churches  abroad; 
and  for  the  better  effecting  hereof,  and  for  the  vindicating  and  clearing  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  from  all  false  calumnies  and  aspersions,  it  is 
thought  fit  and  necessary  to  call  an  assembly  of  learned,  godly  and  judicious 
divines,  to  consult  and  advise  of  such  matters  and  things  touching  the  premises 


318  HISTORY    OF    THE 

as  shall  be  proposed  unto  them  by  both  or  either  of  the  Houses  of  Parliament, 
and  to  give  their  advice  and  counsel  therein  to  both  or  either  of  the  said  Houses, 
when  and  as  often  as  they  shall  be  thereto  required. 

In  addition  to  the  one  hundred  and  fifty -one  members  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  appointed  by  the  Eng-lish  rarruimont, 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  at  the  request 
of  the  English  Parliament,  appointed  Robert  Douglass,  Samuel 
Rutherford,  Alexander  Henderson,  Robert  Baillie  and  George 
Gillespie,  ministers  ;  and  John,  Earl  of  Cassilis,  John  Lord 
Maitland  and  Sir  Archibald  Johnston,  ruling  elders,  commis- 
sioners to  the  Westminster  Assembly.  Erom  the  minutes  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  we  learn  that 
these  commissioners  were  to  "repair  to  England  for  the  pur- 
pose of  consulting  with  the  Westminster  Assembly  in  all  mat- 
ters which  ma}^  further  the  union  of  this  Island  in  one  form 
of  church  government,  one  confession  of  faith,  one  catechism, 
and  one  directory  for  the  worship  of  God."  The  Scotch  com- 
missioners were  not  appointed  until  the  19th  of  August. 

The  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines  adjourned  on  the  22d 
of  February,  1649,  liaving  sat  five  years,  six  months  and  twen- 
ty-two days.  During  this  time  they  held  one  thousand  one 
hundred  and  sixty-three  sessions. 

From  the  ordinances  issued  by  the  English  Parliament,  in 
connection  with  the  instructions  given  the  Scotch  commis- 
sioners by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church. of  Scotland, 
we  are  able  to  learn  definitely  the  object  proposed  to  be  eftected 
by  the  Westminster  Assembly.  It  was  simply  to  reform  the 
Church  of  England  by  abolishing  unscriptural  officers  and  un- 
scriptural  ceremonies.  In  addition  to  this,  it  was  the  aim  of 
the  Scotch  commissioners,  and  probably  of  some  of  the  other 
members  of  the  Assembly,  to  formulate  a  Scripture  form  of 
church  government,  and  a  Directory  for  Worship  wdiich  would 
be  acceptable  to  all  the  Protestants  in  the  world,  and  thus  unite 
all  Protestants  in  one  church.  The  primary  object  was  to  unite 
England,  Ireland  and  Scotland  in  one  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion; the  ultimate  design  was  to  draw  the  line  of  demarca- 
tion clear  and  distinct  between  Protestantism  and  lr*opery. 

At  that  time  the  Church  of  England,  whatever  it  may  be  at 
present,  was  simply  a  slightly — and  but  slightly — modified 
Ibrm  of  popery.     It  took  its  origin,  no  matter  how  much  de- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  319 

nied,  in  the  lust  and  brutal  passions  of  Henry  the  VIII.  In 
popery  proper,  the  Pope  is  the  head  of  the  church,  and  the 
church  is  head  of  the  state ;  consequently,  the  Pope  is  head  of 
both  church  and  state.  The  channel  of  his  universal  dominion 
flows  throuo;h  the  church  to  all  thinacs  secular.  In  the  Church 
of  England,  as  originally  established,  Henry  VIIL,  who  styled 
himself  supreme  head  of  the  church  and  defender  of  the  faith, 
was  head  of  the  state;  the  state  was  head  of  the  church  ;  and 
consequentl}^  the  King  of  England  was  head  of  both  church 
and  state.  His  dominion  was  designed  to  be  absolute  and  over 
all  things,  both  sacred  and  secular.  The  channel  through  which 
this  universal  empire  flowed  was  first  through  the  State ;  then 
over  all  things  sacred.  In  the  Papal  Church,  the  Pope  usurps 
the  prerogative  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  Church  of  England 
Henry  VIIL  usurped  the  prerogative  of  the  Pope.  In  few 
words,  the  Church  of  England,  during  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIIL,  and  his  successors,  was  a  strange  commingling  of  Pro- 
testantism and  Popery.  During  the  time  of  Edward  VI. 
Protestantism  predominated  ;  in  the  time  of  Mary,  commonly 
known  as  Bloody  Mary,  Popery  in  its  worst  form  prevailed  ; 
in  the  time  of  Elizabeth  a  deformed  Protestantism  again  pre- 
vailed, and  continued  until  Charles  I.  came  to  the  throne. 
Then  Popery  was  again  revived.  We  are  not  to  conclude  that 
the  Protestantism,  which  had  at  least  a  recognized  existence 
in  England  for  a  period  of  over  one  hundred  years,  was  genuine 
anti-Popery  Protestantism.  It  was  Protestantism  disgraced, 
disfigured,  deformed  and  polluted  by  Popish  ceremonies  and 
Popish  rites.  The  form  of  church  government  was  modeled 
after  that  of  the  hierarchy  of  Rome.  Its  feast-days  and  its 
fast-days  were  the  same  as  those  in  the  Papal  Church.  The 
Prayer  Book  was  but  a  revised  edition  of  the  Mass  Book. 
The  church  was  governed  by  a  horde  of  officers,  the  names  of 
not  one  of  vv'hich  is  found  in  the  Bible,  and  the  olfices  which 
they  pretended  to  fill  have  not  the  shadow  of  a  sanction  by  the 
King  and  Head  of  the  Church. 

It  was  to  rid  the  Church  of  England  of  these  unscriptural 
appendages  and  to  bring  it  in  doctrine,  in  form  of  government 
and  in  the  mode  of  worship,  to  conform  to  the  Scriptures,  that 
the  Westminster  Assembly  was  called.     The  Scotch  Commis- 


320  HISTORY    OF    THE 

sioners,  in  addition  to  the  above,  labored  to  have  but  one 
church  in  England,  Ireland  and  Scotland,  with  the  intention 
of  extending  it  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

After  more  than  five  years  of  hard  work  they  produced  what 
is  knoAvn  as  the  AVestminster  Confession  of  Faith,  It  consists 
of  a  Confession  of  Faith  proper  ;  of  a  Form  of  Chnrch  Gov- 
ernment ;  of  a  Directory  for  the  Public  Worship  of  God ;  and 
of  the  Catechisms,  Larger  and  Shorter.  In  addition  to  this, 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  contains  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant  for  the  Beformation  and  Defense  of  Re- 
ligion. This  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  was  approved  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  by  both 
Houses  of  Parliament  and  subscribed  by  them  in  1743,  and 
afterwards  by  all  ranks  and  classes  of  people  in  both  England 
and  Scotland. 

The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  was  nothing  more  than  a 
solemn  engagement  on  the  part  of  those  who  signed  it,  that 
the}^  would  make  all  lawful  endeavors  and  use  all  lawful 
means  to  promote  the  reformed  religion  in  England,  Ireland 
and  Scotland ;  and  to  accomplish  this,  they  would,  without 
respect  to  persons,  endeavor  to  eifect  the  "  extirpation  of 
popery,  prelacy  (that  is,  church  government  by  archbishops, 
bishops,  their  chancellors,  commissaries,  deans  and  chapters, 
arch-deacons  and  all  other  ecclesiastical  officers  depending  on 
that  hierarchy),  superstition,  heresy^  schism,  profaneness,  and 
whatsoever  shall  be  found  to  be  contrary'  to  sound  doctrine  and 
the  power  of  godliness  " 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  the 
subscribers  bound  themselves  to  do  the  identical  thing  for  which 
the  English  Parliament  called  the  Westminster  Assembly. 
The  league  was  between  England,  Ireland  and  Scotland,  and 
could  not  be  binding  upon  any  other  parties. 

The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  was  drawn  up  by  Alex- 
ander Henderson,  It  received  the  name  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  at  the  suggestion  of  Sir  Henry  Yane,  that  it  might 
be  satisfactory  both  to  the  Hhglish  and  the  Scotch.  The  con- 
test in  which  the  English  were  engaged  at  the  time  was  of  a 
civil  character.  Hence,  the}'  desired  to  be  united  with  the 
Scotch  in  a  civil  league.  The  contest  in  which  the  Scotch 
were  engaged  was  of  a  religious  character.     Hence,  thej'  de- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  3-21 

sired  to  be  united  with  the  English  in  a  religious  covenant. 
The  league  in  which  they  bound  themselves  was  both  civil 
and  religious,  and  hence  called  The  Solemn  League  axd  Cov- 
enant. King  Charles  I.  issued  a  proclamation,  in  Avhich  he 
said  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  is  "  nothing  else  but  a 
traitorous  and  seditious  combination  against  iis  and  the  estab- 
lished religion  of  this  kingdom.'"  Had  he  substituted  for  the 
words  '>  traitorous '"  and  "  seditious,"  o/^e??,  and  righteous^  and 
omitted  the  pronoun  referring  to  himself,  he  would  have  given 
utterance  to  the  simple  truth.  The  sentence  would  th-en  have 
read  thus  :  "  The  Solemn  Leag-ue  and  Covenant  is  nothins;  else 
but  an  open  and  righteous  combination  against  the  established 
religion  of  this  kingdom."  The  Covenanters,  that  is,  those 
intelligently  signing  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  vrere 
opposed  to  the  established  religion  of  England,  because  they 
regarded  that  religion  as  opposed  to  the  religion  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  subversive  of  His  Kingdom. 

The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  consists  of  thirty-three 
short  chapters.  In  these  all  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  are  concisely  and  clearly  formulated.  They  treat 
of  the  existence  and  attributes  of  God  ;  of  the  Trinity  ;  of  cre- 
ation and  providence ;  and  of  man  in  his  estate  of  innocenc}', 
and  in  his  lost  and  ruined  state.  The  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment ;  of  Christ  the  Eedeemer ;  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  sancti- 
fier ;  of  man  in  a  redeemed  state,  and  of  man  in  a  state  of 
glory,  is  clearly  and  forcibly  set  forth  in  this  Confession.  Of 
the  doctrines  of  this  Confession  of  Faith  it  may  be  said  that 
they  are  in  direct  opposition  to  all  "  Deistical,  Popish,  Arian, 
Socinian,  Armiuiau,  jSTeonomian  and  sectarian  doctrines." 

The  form  of  church  government  laid  down  in  the  TTestmin- 
ster  Confession  of  Faith  is  Presbyterianism  in  opposition  to 
prelac3^  on  the  one  hand,  and  Independency  on  the  other.  The 
Director}'  for  Worship  is  simple,  and  claims  to  be  rigidly  in 
accordance  with  the  Scriptures.  According  to  this  Directory, 
God  is  a  spirit,  and  those  who  would  worship  Him  acceptably 
must  worship  Him  as  a  spirit  and  in  the  way  which  He  has 
appointed  in  His  word,  and  in  no  other  way.  The  pretended 
worshipping  of  God  through  or  b}'  images,  and  the  introducing 
into  the  worship  of  God  anything  not  expressly  enjoined  in  His 
AVord  is  discountenanced  and  regarded  as  a  sin. 

9-) 


322  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  Catechisms,  Larger  and  Shorter,  are  simply  the  truths 
taught  in  the  Confession  proper,  reduced  to  the  form  of  ques- 
tions and  answers  ;  the  Shorter  being  adapted,  as  the  assembly 
thought,  to  the  capacity  of  children  and  those  just  beginning 
to  study  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  the  Larger 
being  better  fitted  for  those  who  have  made  some  advancement 
in  these  studies. 

Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.  It  is  not  the  work  of  inspired  men  ;  but  it  is  the  work 
of  men  who  were  required,  on  oath,  to  set  down  nothing  in 
doctrine  which  they  did  not  believe,  and  which  they  could  not 
show  to  be  either  plainly  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  or  agree- 
able to  the  general  teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  It  would  not 
be  extravagant  to  say  that  every  word  in  every  sentence  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  was  subjected  to  the  severest 
criticism.  Nothing  was  taken  for  granted  ;  nothing  was  done 
hastily.  This  is  true  respecting  the  doctrines,  the  form  of 
church  government,  and  the  directory  for  church  worship.  It 
is  what  it  is  by  the  invincible  power  which  is  in  truth.  It  has 
been  abused  and  ridiculed,  hated  and  despised,  misrepresented 
and  misquoted ;  but  with  a  few  minor  exceptions,  no  one  has 
ever  been  able  to  show  that  there  is  a  single  thing  taught  in 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  which  is  not  taught  in 
the  Bible. 

STANDARDS  OF  THE  ASSOCIATE  REFORMED 
CHURCH. 

This  Confession  of  Faith  ;  Catechisms,  Larger  and  Shorter  ; 
Form  of  Church  Government ;  and  Directory  for  Church  Wor- 
ship, the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  ivt  its  organization, 
adopted,  with  the  exception  of  Section  IV.  of  Chapter  20  ;  Sec- 
tion III.  of  Chapter  23  ;  and  Section  II.  of  Chapter  31. 

That  the  reader  may  be  able  to  form  a  correct  opinion  of  the 
changes  made  in  these  sections,  they  are  quoted  below^  as  they 
stand  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  then  as  amended  and 
adopted  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  : 

Sec.  IV..  Chapteb  20 — Westminstek  Confession. — And  because  the  powers 
which  God  hath  ordained,  and  the  liberty  which  Christ  hath  purchased,  are  not 
intended  by  God  to  destroy,  but  mutually  to  uphold  and  preserve  one  another: 
they  who,  upon  pretense  of  Christian  liberty,  shall  oppose  any  lawful  power,  or 
the  lawful  exercise  of  it,  whether  it  be  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  resist  the  ordinance 
of  God.     And  for  their  publishing  of  such  opinions,  or  maintaining  of  such 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  323 

practices,  as  are  contrary  to  the  light  of  nature,  or  to  the  known  principles  of 
Christianity,  whether  concerning  faith,  worship  or  conversation;  or  to  the  power 
of  godliness;  or  such  erroneous  opinions  or  practices  as  either  in  their  own  na- 
ture, or  in  the  manner  of  publishing  or  maintaining  them,  are  destructive  to  the 
external  peace  and  order  which  Christ  hath  established  in  the  church;  they  may 
lawfully  be  called  to  account,  and  proceeded  against  by  the  censures  of  the 
church,  and  by  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate. 

Associate  Refobmed  Confession.^ — And  because  the  powers  which  God  hath 
ordained,  and  the  liberty  which  Christ  hath  purchased,  are  not  intended  by  God 
to  destroy,  but  mutually  to  uphold  and  preserve  one  another;  they  who,  upon 
pretense  of  Christian  liberty,  shall  oppose  any  lawful  power,  or  the  lawful  exer- 
cise of  it,  whether  it  be  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  resist  the  ordinance  of  God,  and 
for  their  publishing  of  such  opinions,  or  maintaining  of  such  practices  as  are 
contrary  to  the  light  of  nature,  or  to  the  known  principles  of  Christianity, 
whether  concerning  faith,  worship,  conversation  or  the  order  which  Christ  hath 
established  in  His  church,  they  may  be  lawfully  called  to  account  and  proceeded 
against  by  the  censures  of  the  church;  and  in  proportion  as  their  erroneous 
opinions  or  practices,  either  in  their  own  nature  or  in  the  manner  of  publishing 
or  maintaining  them,  are  destructive  to  the  external  peace  of  the  church  and  of 
civil  society,  they  may  be  also  proceeded  against  by  the  power  of  the  civil  mag- 
istrate. 

Sec.  III.,  Chaptek  23 — Westminstek  Confession. — The  civil  magistrate  may 
not  assume  to  himself  the  administration  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  or  the 
power  of  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven;  Xet  he  hath  authority,  and  it  is 
his  duty,  to  take  order  that  unity  and  peace  be  preserved  in  the  Church;  that 
the  truth  of  God  be  kept  pure  and  entire;  that  all  blasphemies  and  heresies 
be  suppressed;  all  corruptions  and  abuses  in  worship  and  discipline  prevented 
or  reformed;  and  all  the  ordinances  of  God  duly  settled,  administered  and  ob- 
served. For  the  better  effecting  whereof  .he  hath  power  to  call  synods,  to  be 
present  at  them,  and  to  provide  that  whatsoever  is  transacted  in  them  be  accord- 
ing to  the  mind  of  God. 

Associate  Reformed  Confession. — The  civil  magistrate  may  not  assume  to 
himself  the  administration  of  the  word  and  the  sacraments,  or  the  power  of  the 
keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ;  Yet,  as  the  gospel  revelation  lays  indispensa- 
ble obligations  upon  all  classes  of  people  who  are  favored  with  it,  magistrates, 
as  such,  are  bound  to  execute  their  respective  offices  in  a  subserviency  thereunto, 
administering  government  on  Christian  principles,  and  ruling  in  the  fear  of 
God,  according  to  the  directions  of  His  Word,  as  those  who  shall  give  an  ac- 
count to  the  Lord  Jesus  whom  God  hath  appointed  to  be  the  Judge  of  the 
world. 

Hence  magistrates,  as  such,  in  a  Christian  country,  are  bound  to  promote  the 
Christian  religion  as  the  most  valuable  interest  of  their  subjects,  by  all  such 
means  as  are  not  inconsistent  with  civil  rights;  and  do  not  imply  an  interference 
with  the  policy  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  free  and  independent  Kingdom  of 
the  Redeemer,  nor  an  assumption  of  dominion  over  conscience. 

Sec.  II.,  Chapteb  31 — Westminsteb  Confession. — As  magistrates  may  law- 
fully call  a  synod  of  ministers  and  other  fit  persons  to  conduct  and  advise  with 
about  matters  of  religion,  so  if  magistrates  be  open  enemies  to  the  Church,  the 


324  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ministers  of  Christ,  of  themselves,  by  virtue  of  tiieir  office,  or  they,  with  other 
fit  persons  upon  delegation  from  their  churches,  may  meet  together  in  such  as- 
semblies. 

Associate  Reformed  Confession. — The  ministers  of  Christ,  of  themselves, 
and  by  virtue  of  their  office,  or  they  with  other  fit  persons,  upon  delegation 
from  their  churches,  have  the  exclusive  right  to  appoint,  adjourn  or  dissolve  such 
synods  or  councils.  Though  in  extraordinary  cases  it  may  be  proper  for  magis- 
trates to  desire  the  calling  of  a  svnod  of  ministers  and  other  fit  persons,  to  con- 
sult and  advise  with  about  matters  of  religion,  and  in  such  cases  it  is  the  duty 
of  churches  to  comply  with  their  desire. 

When  the  Assochite  Reformed  Church  was  organized,  the 
three  Sections  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  quoted 
above,  were  *'  reserved  for  a  candid  discussion  on  some  future 
occasion,  as  God  sliall  be  pleased  to  direct."  As  opportunity 
was  afforded,  they  were  candidly  discussed,  in  private  and  in 
public,  for  a  period  of  more  than  sixteen  years;  and  having 
been  altered  so  as  to  make  them  conform  to  the  Word  of  God, 
were  adopted  on  the  31st  day  of  May,  1799. 

It  will  be  readily  discovered  that  the  three  Sections  of  the 
AVestminster  Confession  of  Faith  which  were  altered  by  the 
Associate  Reformed  Chun^h  all  treat  of  the  prerogatives  of  the 
civil  magistrate.  According  to  tlie  teachings  of  these  Sections, 
in  the  Westminster  Confession,  the  civil  magistrate  has  the 
right  to  call  synods,  to  be  present  at  them  as  a  director  of  their 
deliberations,  to  suppress  heresies,  and  punish  those  who  do  not 
conform  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  church.  This  is 
Erastian  doctrine.  It  renders  to  Ctesar  the  things  that  are 
God's. 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  some  traces  of  Erastianism 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  The 
wonder  is  that  there  are  so  few.  There  are  traces  of  Popery  in 
the  English  translation  of  the  Bible  which  all  English-speak- 
ino;  Christians  have  been  usino-  for  more  than  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years.  Keither  is  this  to  be  wondered  at.  The  preceding- 
ages  were  prolific  in  saints  and  festivals,  and  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  translators  of  the  Bible  would  affix  the  title  "  Saint  " 
to  the  Apostles  and  convert  the  Passover  into  "  Easter." 

During  the  period  in  which  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  was  prepared,  Erastianism  was  making  fearful  havoc  in 
the  church.  Erastian  notions  were  wide  spread  and  deepl}' 
rooted  in  the  popular  mind.     Perhaps  the  most  learned  man 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  325 

in  that  Assembly  was  a  thorough  Erastian.  The  wonder,  then, 
is  that  only  parts  of  three  Sections  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  even  savor  of  Erastianism.  It  has  been  denied 
that  these  three  Sections,  when  rightly  interpreted,  favor 
Erastianism.  This  opinion,  however,  seems  to  be  indefensible. 
The  fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  thought  that 
these  three  Sections  granted  the  ci-vil  magistrate  rights  and 
prerogatives,  on  account  of  his  office,  which  the  King  and 
Head  of  the  Church  does  not  grant  him.  For  this  reason  they 
changed  these  Sections,  and  thus  made,  as  they  thought,  and 
none  deny,  the  church  free  from  all  dependence  upon  the  state 
in  all  matters  pertaining  to  government  and  discipline. 

STANDARDS  OF  THE  ASSOCIATE  REFORMED  SYNOD 
OF  THE  SOUTH. 

The  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South,  at  the  very 
beginning  of  its  separate  existence,  as  we  have  seen,  adopted 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  as  it  was  adopted  by  the 
original  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  in  1799.  To  speak  more 
correctly,  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  de- 
clared, at  the  moment  of  its  sei:)aration  from  the  General  Synod, 
that  they  would  "  adhere  to  the  Constitution  and  Standards  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  that  sense  in  which  they 
were  received  when  adopted  at  Greencastle,  in  the  year  1799, 
and  uniformly  acted  upon  until  the  year  1811.'"' 

This  was  the  resolution  offered  by  Messrs.  Hemphill  and 
Blackstock,  and  adopted  unanimously  by  the  Synod.  From 
this  resolution  we  are  enabled  to  learn  what  was  the  doctrinal 
basis  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South.  In  ad- 
dition to  this,  we  also  learn  its  form  of  church  government  and 
its  directory  for  worship.  AVe  are  also  enabled  to  infer  what 
was  the  main  reason  inducing  the  Sj'uod  to  seek  a  separation 
from  the  General  Synod. 

With  regard  to  the  last  fact,  it  ma}^  be  said  that  among  many 
of  the  present  day,  mistaken  notions  are  entertained  both  by 
those  who  are  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  and 
by  those  who  are  not  members  of  it.  It  is  the  opinion  of  some 
in  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  that  the  separa- 
tion from  the  General  Synod  was  on  account  of  slavery.  Such 
a  conclusion  is  without  a  shadow  of  foundation.     In  1822,  the 


326  HISTORY    OF    THE 

time  of  the  separation,  the  Associate  Reformed  people  of  the 
South  were  by  no  means  the  advocates  of  the  institution  of 
slavery.  In  fact,  a  very  laro^e  number  of  them  were  decidedly 
opposed  to  it.  Only  a  few  of  them  were  at  that  time  slave- 
holders, and  the  probability  is  that  had  the  question  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  Associate  Reformed  people — ministers,  elders  and 
laymen — slaver}-  would  have  been  voted  out  of  the  country  by 
an  overwhelming  majority.  Mr.  Hemphill,  the  mover  of  the 
resolution,  and  nearly  all  the  people  of  his  charge,  were,  in 
1822,  far  from  being  the  advocates  of  slavery.  Mr.  Hemphill 
lived  and  died  opposed  to  slavery,  and  not  a  single  one  of  the 
fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  the  South  Avere 
the  advocates  of  the  institution.  In  addition  to  this,  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  had  at  this  time  never  been  formally  introduced 
into  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  No  memorial,  petition, 
or  anything  of  the  kind  concerning  slavery,  was  ever  presented 
to  the  General  Synod.  Slavery,  no  matter  how  much  it  may 
have,  in  after  years,  estranged  the  people  of  the  two  great  sec- 
tions of  the  United  States,  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  in  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  from  the  General 
Sj'nod  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 

The  name  which  the  Synod  took  to  itself,  on  becoming  inde- 
pendent, might  possibly,  to  a  stranger,  suggest  this — the  word 
South  having  become,  in  after  years,  a  synonym  for  slavery, 
and  North  for  anti-slavery — but  the  conclusion  would  be  un- 
warranted by  the  facts  in  the  case.  In  the  petition  which  the 
Synod  of  the  Carolinas  sent  up  to  the  General  Synod,  it  is 
stated  that  their  "great  distance  from  the  place  of  the  meeting 
of  the  General  Synod  made  it  altogether  impracticable  for  them 
to  maintain  a  full  representation.''  This  was  one  reason  why 
they  desired  their  connection  with  the  General  Synod  dissolved. 
They  also  state  that  "  it  is  supposed  that  the  interests  of  truth 
and  godliness  maj'  be  promoted,  by  them,  as  successfully  in  a 
state  of  separation  from  the  General  Synod." 

From  neither  the  first  nor  the  second  reason,  nor  from  both 
together,  are  we  able  to  do  more  than  infer  the  true  cause  of 
their  desiring  to  be  separated  from  the  General  Synod.  Jt  is 
true,  the  distance  from  the  nearest  member  of  the  Synod  of  the 
Carolinas  and  the  city  of  Philadelphia — the  place  at  which  the 
General  Svnod  usuallv  met — was  more  than  four  hundred  miles. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  327 

and  that  it  ^Yas  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  maintain  a  full 
representation  in  the  General  Sj'nod  at  so  great  a  distance. 
Still,  this  was  no  sufficient  reason  to  warrant  them  in  asking 
for  a  separation,  if  everj'thing  else  had  been  agreeable.  In  fact, 
if  everything  else  had  been  as  the}^  desired  it  to  be,  they  never 
would  have  asked  for  a  separation  ;  and  had  they  asked  it,  the 
General  Synod  would  not  have  granted  it.  Such  a  request 
would  have  been  schismatical,  and  the  o-rantino;  of  it  would 
have  been  encouraging  schism. 

REAL  CAUSE  OF  SEPARATIOX. 
From  the  resolution  offered  by  Messrs.  Hemphill  and  Black- 
stock,  we  are  enabled  to  discover  the  true  and  only  reason 
which  prompted  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  to  ask  the  General 
Synod  for  permission  to  resolve  themselves  into  an  independent, 
coordinate  S3niod.     The  following  is  the  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  this  Synod  be  hereafter  known  by  the  name  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  South — adhering  to  the  Constitution  and  Standards  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  in  that  sense  in  which  they  were  received  when 
adopted  at  Greencastle.  in  the  year  1799.  and  uniformly  acted  upon  until  the 
year  1811. 

The  last  clause,  beginning  with  the  word  "  adhering,'"'  is 
significant.  It  is  the  key  which  unlocks  the  whole  mystery. 
To  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  during  the  ten  years  preceding  1821,  the 
language  of  this  part  of  the  resolution  is  more  than  an  intima- 
tion that  since  the  year  1811,  the  Constitution  and  Standards 
of  the  Church  had  not  been  universally  adhered  to  in  the  sense 
in  which  thoy  were  understood  when  adopted,  in  1799.  So  far 
as  the  truth  of  history  is  cor.ccrned,  it  makes  no  sort  of  differ- 
ence whether  they  were  correct  in  their  conclusion  with  regard 
to  the  sense  in  which  the  Constitution  and  Standards  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church  were  understood,  when  adopted, 
or  not.  They  certainly  believed  that  a  portion  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  had,  in  their  practice,  departed  from  these 
Standards,  and  despairing  of  ever  being  able  to  bring  that  party 
back  to  the  Standards  in  practice,  the}'  desired  to  be  separated 
from  them. 

In  this  opinion  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  was  not  singular. 
The  Synod  of  Scioto,  and  the  Synod  of  Xew  York,  and  a  part 
of  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  entertained  similar  notions  on 


328  HISTOPvY    OF    THE 

this  subject.  In  1819  the  Synod  of  Scioto  resolved  to  with 
draw  from  the  General  Synod  and  constitute  itself  as  an  inde- 
pendent Synod,  "  adhering  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Larger 
and  Shorter  Catechisms,  Form  of  Church  Government  and  Di- 
rectory for  Worship  as  received  at  Greencastle,  Pa.,  on  the  31st 
of  May,  1799."  The  Synod  of  New  York,  although  it  did  not 
withdraw  from  the  General  Synod,  still  its  connection  with 
that  court  from  1810  to  its  final  dissolution  was  merely  nqm- 
inal,  or  rather  one  of  studied  indifference.  In  fact,  it  never 
met  from  1812  to  1822,  and  the  pastors  virtually  neglected 
everything  in  connection  with  the  denomination  except  what 
concerned  their  own  immediate  congregations. 

This  state  of  things  was  brought  about  by  a  diversity  of 
views  concerning  Communion  and  Psalmody.  These  two  sub- 
jects have  no  necessary  connection  ;  but  they  became,  in  all  the 
controversies  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  inseparably 
connected.  The  difiiculty  began  with  Rev.  Messrs.  John  M. 
Mason,  John  X.  Clark  and  James  M.  Matthews,  in  1811.  As 
all  that  was  thought  necessary  to  be  said  about  that  difiiculty 
has  been  elsewhere  narrated,  it  need  not  be  repeated  here,  fur- 
ther than  to  say  that  it  served  as  the  beginning  of  a  series  of 
misunderstandings  which  terminated  in  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Synods  of  Scioto  and  of  the  Carolinas,  and  the  ignominious 
destruction  of  the  General  Synod  itself. 

It  may  be  mentioned  that  at  a  very  early  period  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  General  Synod,  it  began  to  be  suspected  by  a  num- 
ber of  persons  that  there  was  a  tendency  to  centralize  the  power 
of  the  denomination.  This  was  soon  demonstrated  to  be  true 
beyond  a  doubt.  The  General  Synod  refused  to  meet  else- 
where than  in  the  cit}^  of  Philadelphia,  and  in  1810,  the  Gen- 
eral Synod,  by  a  formal  Act,  "  intermitted  the  functions  of  the 
subordinate  Synods."  This  masterly  stroke  of  worldly  wisdom 
paralyzed  the  church,  and  completed  the  centralization.  The 
result  was  that  the  Synods  of  Scioto  and  of  the  Carolinas  were 
ever  afterward  poorly  represented  in  the  General  Synod. 

It  was  further  suspected  that  the  city  pastors  looked  dow.n 
with  a  disdainful  air  upon  their  co-presbyters  from  the  rural 
districts.  It  is  to  be  hoped  this  was  only  a  groundless  suspi- 
cion ;  but  we  must  remember  men  are  but  men.  If  such  was 
the  case,  it  was  certainly  true,  at  least  in  some  instances,  that 
pride  preceded  a  grievous  fall. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  329 

SUBJECTS  OF  CONTROVERSY. 

The  subjects,  and  the  only  subjects  about  which  there  was 
any  dispute  between  the  parties,  were,  as  already  mentioned, 
Psalmody  and  Communion.  The  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  left 
the  General  Sj'nod  because  the  General  Synod  had  departed,  as 
was  thought,  from  the  Constitution  and  Standards  of  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  in  the  matter  of  Communion  and 
PsaJraody. 

COMMUNION. 

The  communion  about  which  the  parties  disagreed  and  finally 
separated  was  restricted  mainly  to  what  may  be  appropriately 
denominated  sacramental  communion.  One  party  held  that  in 
the  administering  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
privilege  of  communing  was  to  be  restricted,  in  ordinary  cases, 
to  the  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  good  and 
regular  standing.  This  was  properly  called  a  regulated,  occa- 
sional or  restricted  communion.  The  opposite  party  held  that 
the  privilege  of  communion  might  be  extended,  on  all  occa- 
sions, to  members  of  other  Christian  denominations  who  re- 
garded themselves  in  good  standing.  This  was  called  the  un- 
restricted or  catholic  communion  scheme. 

It  is  the  province  of  the  theologian,  and  not  of  the  historian, 
to  determine  which  one  of  these  practices,  or  whether  either, 
is  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  All  that 
devolves  upon  the  historian  is  to  show  which  one,  if  either,  of 
these  practices,  was  in  harmony  with  the  early  practices  and 
Standards  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  It  is  believed 
that  an  honest  examination  of  these  Standards,  as  received  by 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  will  convince  any  one  that 
they  favor  neither  absolutely  restricted  communion  nor  catholic 
communion,  but  a  communion  consistent  with  purity  of  doc- 
trine and  Scriptural  discipline.  This,  it  may  be  remarked,  is 
the  only  plan  that  harmonizes  with  the  Testimony  of  the  first 
Seceders. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Communion  of  Saints  is  contained  in  the  XXVIth 
Chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.     It  is  as  follows: 

1.  All  saints  that  are  united  to  Jesus  Christ  their  head,  by  his  Spirit,  and  by 
faith,  have  fellowship  with  Him  in  his  graces,  sufferings,  death,  resurrection  and 
glory.     And  being  united  to  one  another  in  love,  they  have  communion  in  each 


330  HISTORY    OF    THE 

other's  gifts  and  graces  and  are  obliged  to  the  performance  of  f.nch  duties,  pub- 
lic and  private,  ar-.  do  conduce  to  their  mutual  good,  both  in  the  inward  and  out- 
ward man. 

2.  Saints  by  profession  are  bound  to  maintain  an  holy  fellowship  and  com- 
munion in  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  performing  such  other  spiritual  service 
as  tend  to  their  mutual  edification;  as  also  in  relieving  each  other  in  outward 
things,  according  to  their  several  abilities  and  necessities.  Which  communion, 
as  God  offereth  ojjportunity,  is  to  be  extended  unto  all  those  who.  in  every  place, 
call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

3.  This  communion,  which  the  saints  have  with  Christ,  doth  not  make  them 
in  anywise  partakers  of  the  substance  of  his  Godhead,  or  to  be  equal  with 
Christ  in  any  respect;  either  of  which  to  affirm  is  impious  and  blasphemous. 
Nor  doth  their  communion  one  with  another,  as  saints,  take  away  or  infringe 
the  title  or  property  which  each  man  hath  in  his  goods  and  possessions. 

The  word  "  communion,"  as  used  in  this  section  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  has  no  special  reference  to  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Its  proper  meaning,  as  used  by  the  "Westmin- 
ster divines  and  adopted  by  the  Associate  Reformed  fathers,  is 
those  things  which  are  common  to  Christians.  The  XXVIth 
Chapter  of  tlie  Confession  designedly  treats  of  those  things 
which  are  common  to  the  cburch.  In  the  XXV th  Chapter  ot 
the  Confession  of  Faith  we  are  told  what  is  meant  by  the  word 
"church."  It  is  not  a  system  of  laws,  but  a  multitude  of  indi- 
viduals to  whom  God  has  given  a  system  of  laws.  The  church 
is  two-fold,  and  each  is  catholic  or  universal.  There  is  an  in- 
visible church  and  a  visible  church.  The  invisible  church,  ac 
cording  to  the  Confession  of  Faitii,  "consists  of  the  whole 
number  of  the  elect  that  have  been,  are  or  shall  be,  gathered 
into  one  under  Christ  the  Head  thereof."  "  The  visible  church 
consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true 
religion,  together  with  their  children." 

No  unprejudiced  mind  will  come  to  any  other  conclusion 
than  that  the  XXVth  Chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
teaches  that  there  is  one,  and  only  one,  visible  church,  and  that 
the  XXVIth  Chapter  of  the  same  Confession  of  Faith  teaches 
that  whatever  rights  and  privileges  one  member  of  the  visible 
church  is  entitled  to,  all  the  members  of  the  visible  church  are 
entitled  to.  This  is  not  only  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  but  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  so  the  framers 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  thought. 

The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  we  are  forced  is  that  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  teaches  the  doctrine  of  catholic  communion, 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  331 

and  that  most  emphatically.  This  it  was  desigaed  to  teach,  in 
order  that  it  might  be  Presbj'terian  in  all  its  features,  and  In- 
dependent in  none. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  catholic  communion  which 
is  so  clearly  and  so  positively  taught  in  the  XXYIth  Chapter 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  not  designed  to  be  restricted  to 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  embraces  all  social  and 
spiritual  services  which  tend  to  procure  and  further  the  wealth 
and  outward  estate  of  others  and  also  their  spiritual  growth. 
The  fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  admitted  this. 
They  were  obliged  to  admit  it,  or  denj-  that  the  Confession  of 
Faith  was  what  its  framers  designed  it  to  be,  and  what  the}" 
claimed  it  actuall}"  was — a  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith 
suited  and  actually  designed  for  all  Protestants  in  every  part 
of  the  world.  In  this  sense  the  first  Seceders  understood  the 
XXVIth  Article  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 
Hence  Rev.  Ralph  Erskine  said,  in  1737,  when  he  withdrew 
from  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland  and  joined  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery :  "  By  withdrawing  from  these  judicatories 
at  present,  and  joining  the  said  brethren,  I  intend  and  under- 
stand no  withdrawing  from  ministerial  communion  with  any 
of  the  godly  ministers  of  this  Xational  Church.'"'  So  thought 
al]  the  other  members  of  the  Associate  Presb3-tery.  The}- 
could  have  entertained  no  other  notions  without  having  ad- 
mitted tluit  they  had  set  about  in  a  regularly  organized  form 
to  pr(.[iagate  schism. 

The  primary  object,  as  has  been  elsewhere  stated,  designed 
to  be  efiected  by  the  AVestminster  Assembly,  was  to  free  the 
Church  of  England  from  a  prelatic  hierarchy,  and  unite  Eng- 
land, Ireland  and  Scotland  in  one  form  of  church  government. 
Tlje  ultimate  object  was  to  unite  all  the  Protestants  in  the  world 
in  one  church,  having  one  form  of  church  government,  one  direc- 
tory for  worship,  and  one  confession  of  faith.  In  doctrine,  in 
form  of  government  and  directory  for  worship,  this  church  was 
designed  to  conform  rigidly  to  the  Scriptures. 

Every  one  who  takes  the  Bible  for  his  guide,  in  all  matters 
of  faith  and  practice,  must  admit  that  the  object  had  in  view 
by  the  AVestminster  Assembly  was  eminently  praiseworthy. 
It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  while  the  primary  ob- 
ject had  in  view  by  the  framers  of  the  Westminster  Confession 


332  HISTORY    OF    THE 

of  Faith  was  to  free  the  Church  of  England  from  prelacy,  unite 
England,  Ireland  and  Scotland  in  one  church,  and  ultimately 
to  unite  all  Protestants  in  all  parts  of  the  world  in  one  church, 
having  one  confession  of  faith,  one  form  of  church  govern- 
ment, one  directory  for  worship,  neither  the  primary  nor  the 
ultimate  object  was  eifected. 

jSTotwithstanding  this  was  the  case,  the  fathers  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Keformed  Church  adopted  the  XXVIth  Chapter  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  in  the  same  sense  that  it  was  understood 
by  its  framers,  and  in  the  same  sense  that  it  was  adopted  by 
the  Church  of  Scotland.  Since,  however,  this  Confession  of 
Faith  was  not  adopted,  as  was  expected,  by  all,  and  since  the 
visible  church  is  rent  into  numberless  divisions  and  sub-divi- 
sions, each  claiming  to  be  the  true  Church  of  God,  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  concluded  that  catholic  communion 
was,  under  such  circumstances,  impracticable,  unless  they 
would  accept  the  notion  that  one  system  of  doctrine,  and 
one  form  of  church  government  and  one  directory  for  wor- 
ship is  just  as  good  as  another.  Or,  more  correctly,  they  re- 
garded catholic  communiQU,  in  the  present  divided  state  of  the 
church,  as  impracticable,  unless  they  would  first  conclude  that 
there  is  no  form  of  church  government  and  no  directory  for 
worship  either  laid  down  in  the  Bible  or  deducible  from  it,  and 
that  Unitarian,  Trinitarian,  Socinian,  Pelagian,  Arminian,. 
Sectarian  and  Calvanistic  systems  of  doctrine  are  things  about 
which  men  may  wrangle,  but  which  in  reality  are  matters  of 
no  importaiice. 

These  concessions  the  Associate  Reformed  fathers  could  not 
make  and  be  honest.  Consequently  they  rejected  catholic 
communion  simply  as  impracticable  in  tlie  present  divided  state 
of  the  church. 

They  also  rejected  that  absolutely  exclusive  theory  which 
unchurches  all  except  those  who  hold  it.  They  avoided  both 
extremes  and  wisely  chose  what  was  regarded  as  the  true 
Scripture  ground. 

These  statements  and  conclusions  it  is  proposed  to  substan- 
tiate by  quotations  from  the  authoritative  deliverances  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church. 

Previous  to  the  union  which  resulted  in  the  organization  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  Rev.  John' Afason,  father  of 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  •  333 

Dr.  John  M.  Mason,  presented  to  the  conference  a  paper  con- 
sistino^  of  eio-ht  Articles.  This  was  designed  to  subserve  the 
purpose  of  a  temporary  constitution  until  the  reserved  chap- 
ters had  undergone  "  a  candid  discussion,"  were  amended  and 
adopted  ;  and  it  was  also  declared  to  be  a  "proper  display  of 
the  princij^les  upon  which  we  (the  Associate  Reformed  Church) 
intend  to  act."  As  such,  this  paper  was  agreed  upon  by  the  Con- 
vention, and  as  sucli  it  was  adopted  without  a  dissenting  vote 
by  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  when  organized.  It  may  be 
proper  to  remark  in  this  place  that  on  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  in  1799,  the  "Little  Constitution,"  or  the 
eight  Articles  contained  in  the  paper  presented  b}^  Mr.  Mason 
and  adopted  in  1782,  were  not  repealed,  but  still  remained  as 
the  Standards  of  the  Church,  since  the}"  explained  the  sense  in 
which  the  several  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  were 
understood. 

It  is  to  these  and  to  an  Overture  published  by  tlie  Synod  in 
1787,  and  to  an  Act  of  the  Synod  in  1790,  that  the  Synods  of 
the  Carolinas  and  Scioto  refer  when  they  say  that  they  will 
"adhere  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
was  understood  when  adopted  in  1799." 

Taking  it  for  granted  that  the  XXVIth  Chapter  of  the  Con 
fession  of  Faith  taught  the  doctrine  of  catholic  communion, 
they  did  not  adopt  it  with  the  expectation  of  practicing  it  in 
its  literal  and  wider  sense,  but  in  the  sense  which  they  express 
in  the  Yllth  Article  of  the  "  Little  Constitution,"  which  is  as 
follows : 

The  members  of  this  Synod  also  acknowledge  it  to  be  their  duty  to  treat  pious 
persons  of  other  denominations  with  great  tenderness.  The}'  are  willing,  as 
God  affordeth  opportunity,  to  extend  communion  to  all  who,  in  every  place,  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  conformity  to  His  will.  But  as  occasional 
communion,  in  a  divided  state  of  the  church,  may  produce  great  disorders,  if  it 
be  not  conducted  with  much  wisdom  and  moderation,  they  esteem  themselves, 
and  the  people  under  their  inspection,  inviolably  bound,  in  all  ordinary  cases,  to 
submit  to  every  restriction  of  their  liberty  which  general  edification  renders 
necessary. 

The  reader  must  not  conclude  that  the  word  "  communion,"  as 
it  occurs  in  the  Little  Constitution,  nor  as  it  occurs  in  the 
XXVIth  Chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  is  used  in  that 
restricted  and  narrow  sense  in  which  it  is  at  present  frequently 
used  to  mean  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  was  un- 
derstood by  those  who  adopted  the  "  Little  Constitution  "  to 


334  HISTORY    OF    THE 

embrace  everytliing  that  is  meant  by  the  word  "worship."'  As 
dispensing  and  receiving  the  Lord's  Supper  may  be  classed 
under  the  head  of  worship,  the  communion  mentioned  in  this 
Article  of  the  "  Little  Constitution  "  includes  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  together  with  many  other  things.  It  is  clear 
from  this  Article  that  the  members  of  the  Associate  Ref  irmed 
Church  were  held  inviolably  bound  to  restrict  their  liberty  in 
the  matter  of  communion,  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  gen- 
eral edification.  The  reason  given  is  plain,  and  we  may  add, 
charitable.  They  do  not  say  that  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith,  which  they  had  adopted,  teaches  restricted  com- 
munion ;  neither  do  they  say,  as  some  others  say,  ai?d  as  it  has 
often  been  said  they  say,  that  all  other  denominations  arc  syn- 
agogues of  Satan,  but  they  simply  say :  "  Occasional  com- 
munion, in  a  divided  state  of  the  church,  may  produce  great 
disorders."  The  Article  itself,  they  further  say,  "  is  not  to  be 
construed  as  a  license  to  encourage  vagrant  preachers  who  go 
about  under  pretense  of  extraordinary  zeal  and  devotion,  and 
are  not  subject  to  the  government  and  discipline  of  any  regular 
church."  The  reference  here  is  to  ministerial  communion. 
To  the  whole  Article  a  foot-note  was  added,  in  which  it  is  de- 
clared that,  "  The  principle  expressed  in  this  Article  is  not  a 
new  principle  adopted  by  the  Synod.  It  is  one  of  the  received 
principles  adopted  by  the  Secession,  and  it  is  set  in  a  very- 
strong  light  in  the  XXYIth  Chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
No  objection,  therefore,  can  be  justly  stated  against  it  as  it 
stands  in  the  Article,  but  what  may  be  made  to  it  as  it  stands 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  The  application  of  the  principle 
to  particular  cases  may,  indeed,  be  attended  with  some  diffi- 
culties, as  they  arise  from  the  divided  state  of  the  church  of 
Christ.  The  Article  is  guarded,  and  cannot,  without  the  most 
evident  perversion,  be  construed  as  a  license  to  hold  unscrip- 
tural  communion  with  other  churches." 

We  will  next  quote  from  the  "  Overture,"  as  it  was  called. 
The  Overture  is  an  "  Exposition  and  Defense  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly's  Confession  of  Faith."  It  is  mainly  the  pro- 
duction of  Eev.  Robert  Annan,  and  was  laid  before  the  Synod 
and  by  them  unanimously  declared,  in  1790,  to  be  "in  sub- 
stance an  excellent  and  instructive  illustration  and  application 
of  these  truths  unto  the  present  state  of  the  chureh  of  Christ 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  335 

in  America.  And  the  Synod  recommend  it  as  such  to  all  the 
people  under  their  inspection."  It  may  further  be  remarked 
that  in  this  "  Overture  "  the  Chaptei-s  of  the  Confession  are 
taken  up  seriatim,  and  of  each  an  exposition  is  given.  The 
exposition  of  the  XXVIth  Chapter  is  long  ;  but  as  it  is  by  no 
means  a  dull,  prosy  production,  it  is  quoted  entire,  rather  than 
run  the  risk  of  marring  its  beauty,  or  of  conveying  an  improper 
idea  of  its  import.     It  is  as  follows: 

OA^ERTURE. 

The  twenty-sixth  chapter  treats  of  the  communion  of  saints.  And  the  view 
given  us  in  the  preceding  chapter  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  church,  will  in- 
struct us  in  another  question:  "What  ought  to  be  the  terms  of  communion  in 
His  church?  The  word  "communion"  properly  signifies  something  that  is 
common  to  a  number  of  persons;  and  thus  it  was  said  of  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians who  were  so  moved  with  the  love  of  Christ  and  of  each  other,  that  the  love 
of  the  world  had  no  place  in  their  hearts;  "that  they  had  all  things  common." 
The  rich  freely  distributed  to  the  poor,  and  no  man  called  anything  his  own. 
exclusively  of  others.  All  true  Christians  have  communion  in  Christ  their  head. 
They  have  all  one  God  and  Father  with  Him.  "I  ascend,"  says  he,  "  to  my  God. 
and  your  God;  to  my  Father  and  yoiir  Father."  One  common  inheritance. 
The  J'  are  all  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ.  They  have  all  communion 
with  God  the  Father,  with  Christ  and  with  each  other  in  the  truth.  They  all 
think  as  Christ  thinks,  on  the  great  foundation  truths  of  the  gospel.  They  are 
all  taught  by  the  spirit  of  God,  who  leads  them  into  all  truth;  and  this  com- 
munion reaches  to  the  innumerable  company  of  angels  and  the  spirits  of  just 
men  made  perfect  in  heaven.  The  church,  militant  and  triumphant,  are  one  in 
this:  there  is  a  blessed  harmony  between  them  in  the  truth;  and  the  strongest 
bonds  of  union  in  a  Christian  church  are  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  a  ^m 
faith  in  it,  love  to  it  and  to  each  other,  for  the  truth's  sake.  True  Christians 
have  all  communion  in  the  justifying  righteoasness  and  sanctifying  spirit  of 
Christ.  They  are  adorned  with  the  same  robe  of  righteousness  and  drink  into  one 
spirit.  They  are  heirs  of  the  same  promises  and  partakers  of  the  same  bless- 
ings. They  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat,  and  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink: 
for  they  all  drink  of  that  spiritual  rock  which  follows  them;  and  that  rock  is 
Christ.  They  have  one  Lord,  one  faith  and  one  baptism,  and  are  called  in  one 
hope  of  their  calling.  And  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  express  this  communion 
externally  by  observing  all  Christ's  institutions  in  a  social  manner.  These  truths 
cannot  be  denied;  and  were  it  possible  to  get  all  true  Christians  throughout  the 
whole  world  assembled  into  one  church,  while  none  others  were  admitted,  there 
would  be  very  little  jarring  between  them;  probablj'  none,  in  the  great  truths  and 
duties  of  the  gospel.  But  this  is  impossible.  God  hath  wisely  ordered  it  other- 
wise. The  tares  and  the  wheat  must  grow  together  until  the  harvest.  Chris- 
tians are  the  salt  of  the  earth.  God  hath  sprinkled  this  salt  over  a  great  part  of 
the  world,  in  order  to  season  and  preserve  from  total  putrefaction  the  mass  of 
mankind.  Differences  in  the  church  of  Christ,  errors  and  corruptions,  spring 
chiefly  from  false  brethren;  formal  professors  who  have  a  name  to  live  and  yet 
are  dead,  the  former  without  the  power  of  godliness;  the  sons  of  Diotrephes. 


336  HISTORY    OF    THE 

who  love  to  have  the  preeminence;  such  ever  will  connect  the  church  with  the 
world,  and  conform  her  to  it  as  far  as  they  can.  And  we  must  hero  also  allow 
something  to  the  different  capacities  of  true  Christians,  their  very  various  ad- 
vances in  knowledge,  grace  and  holiness,  -and  the  power  of  temptation  under 
which  they  sometimes  fall.  All  these  things  being  considered,  we  may  safely 
say  there  is  not  a  perfectly  pure  church  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  The  purest  is 
the  best,  which  we  ought  carefully  to  seek  and  embrace,  as  God  gives  opportu- 
nity. But  in  nowise  must  we  withdraw  from  her  communion  altogether.  As  is 
common  in  other  cases,  so  it  is  here;  we  are  quick-sighted  in  discovering  the 
spots  and  blemishes  of  other  churches;  and  they  are.  no  doubt,  equally  so  in 
discerning  ours.  We  cast  guilt  and  blame  on  others,  but  no  man  saith,  What 
have  I  done?  There  is  an  extreme  danger  of  falling  under  the  power  of  Phari- 
saical ostentation  and  religious  pride  in  our  profession.  This  was  the  great  sin 
of  the  Jewish  church  in  Christ's  day,  and  this  sin  crucified  the  Lord  of  glory. 
It  is  natural  for  us  to  say,  We  are  the  people,  and  wisdom  shall  die  with  us: 
stand  aside,  we  are  holier  than  you.  And  there  can  be  no  greater  evidence  of 
gross  hypocrisy,  in  a  religious  profession,  than  when  a  fondness  for  pompous 
and  showy  titles  and  pretension  overthrows  candor,  meekness,  charity,  patience, 
forbearance  and  peace. 

Taking  it  for  granted,  therefore,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  maintain 
a  visible  communion  with  the  church  of  Christ,  wherever  Providence  shall  order 
their  lot;  that  no  church  is  perfectly  pure;  that  it  is  their  duty  to  seek  the  purest 
communion  to  which  they  can  have  access;  we  shall  proceed  to  point  out  the 
tsrms  of  communion  which  in  our  opinion  come  nearest  to  the  word  of  God ;  on 
which  terms  any  Christian  may  safely  join  in  stated  fellowship  with  any  branch 
of  the  Christian  church  where  Providence  naay  order  his  lot.  They  are  briefly 
these:  First,  that  the  profession  of  faith  of  Christ  in  said  church  be  full  and 
pure.  Secondly,  that  her  worship  be  Scriptural,  all  of  Christ's  ordinances  being 
purely  administered.  Thirdly,  that  her  discipline  and  government  be  according 
to  the  word  of  God,  temperate,  pure,  impartial,  peaceful  and  gentle.  Fourthly, 
th<B  her  morals  be  strictly  conformed  to  the  divine  rule.  Fifthly,  that  the  unity 
of  the  spirit  be  maintained  in  the  bond  of  peace.  All  this  we  maintain  with  an 
allowance  for  the  unavoidable  .weaknesses  and  infirmities  incident  to  human 
nature  in  its  present  imperfect  state.  On  the  same  conditions,  or  materially  the 
same,  may  any  church  admit  a  new  member  to  her  communion  in  a  stated  way. 
It  is  requisite  that  he  have  a  proper  degree  of  knowledge,  be  sound  in  faith, 
holy  in  life,  and  profess  a  willing  subjection  to  all  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  par- 
ticularly to  the  discipline  and  government  of  his  house.  His  continuance  in 
fellowship  naust  depend  upon  his  pure  and  peaceable  deportment.  The  rulers 
of  the  church  will  find  much  scope  for  the  exercise  of  wisdom,  prudence,  meek- 
ness, condescension,  charity  and  patience  in  this  case.  They  will  see  the  neces- 
sity of  attending  to  the  various  capacities,  opportunities,  means  of  improve- 
ment, docility  of  disposition,  the  different  tempers  and  temptations  of  Chris 
tians;  and  govern  themselves  by  that  wisdom  which  is  profitable  to  direct. 
When  a  person  removes  from  one  church  to  another,  it  is  extremely  proper,  for 
the  sake  of  good  order,  that  he  produce  a  testimonial  of  his  soundness  in  the 
faith,  and  holy  life. 

That  a  temporary,  or  what  is  called  occasional  communion  with  sister  churches, 
may  lawfully,  in  some  instances,  take  place,  is  what  no  man  of  understanding 
■who  is  not  much  pinched  to  support  some  favorite  and  false  hypothesis,  will 


ASSOCIATE*  PRESBYTERY.  331 

deny.  The  tei-ms  of  it  are  not  materially  different  from  the  terms  of  stated 
communion,  only  making  an  allowance  for  a  variety  in  innocent  customs  and 
forms.  There  are,  doubtless,  points  of  external  order  in  churches  which  may  be 
called  indiiferent,  such  as,  whether  we  begin  public  worship  with  prayer  or 
praise;  whether,  in  baptism,  we  sprinkle  once  or  thrice;  whether,  in  consecrat- 
ing the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  pray  once  or  twice;  whether 
we  give  tokens  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  table  or  not,  if  otherwise  proper  care 
be  taken  to  guard  against  an  unhallowed  communion;  and  some  things  may  be 
lawful  and  expedient  in  one  church  which,  though  lawful,  would  not  be  expedient 
in  another.  There  is  also  a  difference  between  a  church  formed  and  the  one 
only  forming;  and  between  a  church  advancing  in  reformation  and  one  falling 
back  from  former  attainments. 

By  occasional  communion  we  do  not  mean  the  admitting  to  our  communion  a 
person  whom  it  would  be  sinful  to  continue  in  it;  but  a  person  who,  on  account 
of  his  local  circumstances,  cannot  continue  in  it.  Christians  may  for  months 
and  years  be  removed  from  the  place  of  their  stated  communion.  What  shall 
they  do  in  such  circumstances?  Shall  they  forsake  the  assemblies  of  the  saints? 
Shall  they  cease  to  express  ^publicly  their  love  to  Christ  and  His  people?  Shall 
they  have  no  visible  communion  with  that  branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ  because 
it  happens  to  be  in  another  part  of  the  world?  Shall  they  cease  to  give  public 
glory  to  their  Redeemer,  and  to  confess  Him  before  men  because  they  are  not  at 
home?  Is  their  God  a  local  deity  confined  to  a  particular  place,  or  is  His  ac- 
ceptable worship  so  limited?  No.  Christians  may  worship  God  everywhere, 
lifting  up  holy  hands  without  wrath  and  doubting;  and  our  Confession  saith  the 
same  thing.  Article  3.  It  is  certainly  circumscribing  the  doctrine  of  the  Con- 
fession too  much  to  say  that  the  communion  here  meant,  is  no  more  than  com- 
munion in  the  common  benefits  of  life,  because  communion  in  these  may  be 
lawfully  extended  to  Jews,  Turks  and  heathens.  '•  Do  good  to  all  men,  especially 
to  the  household  of  faith,"  is  a  divine  precept.  And  if  it  be  so,  as  some  affirm^ 
that  common  benefits  are  not  the  fruits  of  Christ's  death  even  to  believers,  are 
not  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  are  neither  ajiplied  by  the  Spirit  nor  re- 
ceived by  faith,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  communion  in  these  alone  can  be 
Christian  communion  which  believers  have  with  each  other  in  Christ.  It  would 
be  an  unreasonable  extension  of  the  phrase,  "With  all  who  in  every  place  call  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  to  make  it  include  all  pretenders  to  Christianity. 
The  phrase  is  purely  Scriptural;  and  doubtless  the  apostolic  sense,  if  we  could 
ascertain  it,  is  the  true  sense.  It  is  quoted  from  I.  Corinthians:  1,  2.  It  cannot 
be  denied  then  that  the  apostle  intended  such  churches  as  that  at  Corinth,  though 
several  things  were  imperfect  and  wrong  in  it,  as  will  readily  appear  to  any  who 
will  read  the  epistles  to  that  church.  The  happy  medium  on  this  subject,  which 
would  neither  extend  communion  too  widely,  nor  circumscribe  it  too  much, 
the  true  Scriptural  model  is  that  at  which  we  would  aim.  The  mind  of  Christ  we 
wish  to  discern  and  follow.  We  are  far  from  claiming  the  prerogatives  of  the 
whole  catholic  body  of  Christ,  to  our  society,  in  an  exclusive  sense.  We  will  not 
pretend  to  unchurch  all  the  Protestant  churches,  or  say  that  their  communion  is 
so  impure  that  it  would  contaminate  us  to  touch,  taste  or  handle  it  in  any  case. 
But  while  we  say  so,  to  guard  against  the  mistake  as  if  we  were  pleading  for  a 
promiscuous  or  unhallowed  communion,  let  it  be  observed  that  this  question  is 
not  at  all  concerning  the  Church  of  Rome.  God  has  described  her  as  anti- 
Christian,  as  totally  gone  off  the  foundation,  impure  in  doctrine,  idolatrous  in 
23 


338  HISTORY    OF    THE 

worship,  tyrannical  on  one  hand  and  totally  loose  on  the  other,  in  discipline  her 
government  an  image  of  the  lordly  pride  of  this  world ;  her  morals  very  impure ;, 
she  is  described  as  Sodom  for  filthiness;  Babylon,  for  pride  and  cruelty;  Egypt, 
for  darkness,  idolatry  and  tyranny ;  His  people  are  commanded  to  come  out  of 
her,  that  they  partake  not  of  her  plagues.  Nor  is  the  question  concerning  rav- 
ing sectarians,  who  have  corrupted  some,  or  perhaps  many  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  gospel,  who  have  set  aside  or  maimed,  added  to  or  diminished  the  ordinances 
of  Christ.  What  Christian  can  favor  such  opinions  as  these  ?  The  light  within, 
not  the  Word  of  God,  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  life ;  that  is.  men  may  believe  and 
act  just  as  every  naan's  own  mind  directs  him,  without  having  a  regard  to  any 
rule  or  fixed  standard.  That  we  must  attempt  no  duty  until  the  Spirit  of  God 
moves  us  thereto,  whereas  Christ  commands  us  to  pray  for  His  Spirit,  and  the 
consequence  of  that  opinion  is  commonly  that  it  leads  to  a  general  neglect  of 
many,  if  not  all  religious  duties.  That  every  one  that  pleases  may  commence  a 
teacher  in  the  church  of  God,  or  as  the  Spirit  moves  him  thereto.  That  there  is 
no  Sabbath,  no  sacraments  under  the  gospel.  Nor  is  the  question  concerning 
any  church  or  religious  society  whatsoever,  that  would  impose  any  sinful  term 
or  terms  of  communion;  or  with  whom  even  a  temporary  communion  would  in- 
volve in  a  direct  or  imjilied  apostasy  from  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  and  that  holy 
profession  of  his  name  to  which  we  have  attained.  Whenever  even  a  temporary 
communion  would  do  this,  it  ought  to  be  avoided. 

But  the  question  is,  concerning  the  regular,  orderly  Protestant  churches,  who 
have  clearly  expressed  their  orthodoxy  in  their  Confessions  of  Faith,  adhered 
thereto  and  walk  in  the  order  of  the  gospel,  although  differing  from  us  in  some 
external  modes  and  forms.  We  cannot  pretend  to  unchurch  these  sister  churches, 
or  pronounce  their  communion  unclean,  and  in  all  cases  improper  to  be  touched. 
We  could  not  defend  such  a  principle  from  reason  or  Scripture,  and  so  will  not 
advance  it.  We  might  have  said  nothing  on  this  offensive  subject,  as  it  is  to 
some.  We  might  have  concealed  our  sentiments;  but  in  a  public  declaration  of 
our  principles,  we  think  this  would  have  been  uncandid;  and  we  hope  tender  and 
humble  Christians  will  not  wish  that  we  should  advance  principles  which  are  not 
supported  by  reason,  good  sense,  nor  by  the  Word  of  God.  From  these  churches 
we  never  separated.  Our  fathers  never  thought  of  pronouncing  their  com- 
munion unclean  ;  far  less  did  they  ever  think  of  totally  rejecting  it.  Knox  held 
communion  with  the  foreign  churches.  Welsh,  with  the  Protestant  Church  of 
France.  Moncrieff,  with  the  Church  of  Holland,  when  he  studied  at  Leyden. 
Renwick  received  ordination  in  the  Church  of  Holland.  And  it  is  a  fact  that 
Rutherford,  Henderson,  Bailey,  etc.,  held  communion  with  their  brethren  in  Eng- 
land, while  they  attended  the  Westminster  Assembly.  It  was  with  the  greatest 
reluctance  that  the  ministers  of  the  Association  first  withdrew  from  the  Estab- 
lished Church  of  Scotland.  They  did  it  with  holy  fear  and  humility;  considered 
it  as  an  awful  and  important  step ;  still  declared  they  meant  no  separation  from 
the  Church- of  Scotland,  but  from  a  corrupt  party  in  that  church;  and  they  held 
communion  with  several  ministers  of  that  church  for  some  years  after  their 
separation.  But  now  schisms  and  separations  are  with  many  a  light  matter; 
they  tear  and  divide  in  a  wanton  manner,  only  to  gratify  pride,  passion  and  un- 
godly zeal.  May  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  us  and  give  His  healing  Spirit.  We 
shall  only  add  that  submission  to  the  discipline  of  a  church,  while  we  are  in  her 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  389 

communion,  is  indispensably  necessary.  On  the  whole,  we  never  can,  and  never 
will,  embrace  the  principle  that  all  the  Protestant  churches,  except  our  own 
party,  are  unfit  for  Christian  or  holy  communion. 

AN  ACT  TO   AMEND  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF   THE 
ASSOCIATE  REFORMED  SYNOD. 

One  more  quotation  will  suffice.  In  the  Act  of  the  Synod, 
in  1797,  amending  the  Confession  of  Faith,  it  is  stated:  "  The 
XXVIth  Chai3ter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  understood  as 
opposed  not  only  to  bigotry,  which  at  least,  by  implication, 
appropriates  to  a  particular  denomination  the  character  and 
privileges  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  but  also  to  the  scheme  of 
communion  called  latitudinarian,  which  unites  all  parties  of 
professed  Christians  in  the  fullest  communion,  on  the  footing 
only  of  those  general  principles  that  some  distinguish  by  the  name 
of  essentials ;  a  scheme  which  is  condemned  as  subservient  of  the 
design  of  this  and  every  other  stated  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
as  having  a  natural  tendency  to  promote  error  and  to  extinguish 
zeal  for  many  important  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  consequently'- 
they  (the  Synod)  do  not  consider  themselves  at  liberty  to  hold 
organical  communion  with  any  denomination  of  Christians, 
that  is  inconsistent  with  a  faithful  and  pointed  testimony  for 
any  revealed  truth,  respecting  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and 
church  government." 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  are  forced  to  come,  from  these 
authoritative  documents,  is,  that  in  theory  the  Associate  Re- 
formed fathers  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  catholic  coTnmunion, 
and  in  this  sense  did  they  understand  the  XXVIth  Chapter  of 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  Since,  however,  the 
church  of  God  is  in  a  divided  state,  they  held  that  catholic 
communion  could  not,  without  great  danger,  be  practiced. 
Hence,  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  they  believed  that  they 
were  "  inviolably  bound  "  to  confine  the  privilege  of  communion 
to  the  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  except  in 
extraordinary  cases.  The  doctrine  that  organic  union  is  abso- 
lutely necessary,  in  order  that  there  maybe  communion  among 
Christians  in  the  ordinances  of  God's  house,  was  held  by  neither 
the  first  Seceders,  nor  by  the  Associate  Reformed  fathers.  Not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  the  Standards  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  did  admit  of  occasional  communion  on  extra- 


340  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ordinary  occasions,  it  was  never,  or  very  rarely,  practiced  until 
1810.  Previous  to  this  time  the  practice  of  the  church  was 
more  conservative  than  its  Standards.  This  is  easily  accounted 
for.  Outside  of  her  own  members  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  had  few  friends  and  many  enemies. 

In  1810  occasional  communion,  on  an  extraordinary  occasion, 
Avas  introduced  by  Rev.  Dr.  John  M.  Mason.  The  matter  was 
brought  before  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  church,  and  Dr. 
Mason  was  not  censured.  This  action  of  the  General  Synod 
was  interpreted  by  the  Synods  of  the  Carolinas  and  Scioto  as  a 
vote  of  approbation.  By  some  congregations  the  practice  of 
occasional  communion  was  continued  and  the  restrictions 
placed  upon  the  XXVIth  Chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
were  practically  disregarded.  In  1816  Dr.  Maso;i  vindicated 
this  course  by  publishing  A  Plea  for  Sacramental  Communion 
on  Catholic  Principles.  This  drew  the  dividing  line  between 
the  parties,  on  the  communion  question,  clear  and  distinct,  and 
hastened  their  organic  separation. 

The  i)Osition  taken  by  Dr.  Mason,  in  his  Plea,  is  verj-  differ- 
ent from  that  held  by  him  in  1811.  His  former  position,  al- 
though novel,  was  not  in  glaring  conflict  with  the  Standards 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  l[e  was  placed  under  ex- 
traordinary circumstances,  and  what  would  have  been  unlaw^- 
ful  under  ordinary  circumstances,  would  have  been  in  all  proba- 
bility allowed  under  his  peculiar  surroundings. 
•  In  his  Plea,  however,. Dr.  Mason  advocated  a  practice  which 
was  new,  not  only  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  but  new 
in  all  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  world  at  that  time.  It 
is  a  historic  fact  that  although  the  Standards  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  have  ever  allowed,  under  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstances, a  regulated,  restricted  communion,  the  practice  of 
the  church  was,  up  to  1811,  very  nearly  an  absolutely  restricted 
communion.  In  other  words,  her  practice  was  higher  than  her 
Standards. 

About  1811  some  members  of  the  Synods  of  Xew  York  and 
Pennsylvania  began  to  practice  what  was  called  latitudinarian 
communion.  This  was  contrary  to  the  Standards  of  the  church, 
and  this  was  one  of  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  withdrawal  of 
the  Synods  of  Scioto  and  the  Carolinas.  When  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  became  independent,  it  was  wuth 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  341 

the  distinct  understanding  that  the  practice  of  the  cliurch  re- 
specting communion,  iDrevious  to  1811,  be  adhered  to.  In  other 
^yords,  that  communion  in  the  sacraments  be  restricted,  except 
on  extraordinary  occasions,  to  the  members  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church. 

PSALMODY. 
The  other  cause  which  led  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  to 
withdraw  from  the  General  Synod  was  the  introducing  into 
the  worship  of  God  a  system  of  psalmody  different  from  that 
adopted  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  The  law  of  the 
church  on  this  point  is  clear  and  distinct.  It  is  contained  in 
The  Directory  for  Public  Worship,  Section  3,  and  is  as  follows  : 

1.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  praise  God  publicly,  by  singing  of  psalms 
together  with  the  congregation. 

2.  It  is  the  will  of  God,  that  the  sacred  songs  contained  in  the  Book  of  Psalms, 
be  sung  in  His  worship,  both  public  and  private,  to  the  end  of  the  world;  and 
the  rich  variety  and  i^erfect  purity  of  their  matter,  the  blessing  of  God  upon 
them  in  every  age,  and  the  edification  of  the  church  thence  arising,  set  the  pro- 
priety of  singing  them  in  a  convincing  light;  nor  shall  any  composure,  merely 
human,  be  sung  in  any  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Churches. 

The  above,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  clause,  was  adopt- 
ed in  1797.  The  last  clause  :  "  ISTor  shall  any  composure,  mere- 
ly human,  be  sung  in  an}^  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Churcheg," 
was  afterwards  added,  tradition  says,  on  the  urgent  solicitation 
of  Rev.  John  Hemphill.  It  matters  not  particularly  by  whom  it 
was  added.  It  was  certainly  in  the  Article  when  adopted 'in 
1799,  and  has,  without,  note  or  comment,  addition  or  diminu- 
tion, been  the  law  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  ever 
since. 

The  metrical  version  of  the  Psalms  then  in  general  use,  and 
which  was  adopted  by  the  Associate  I^eformed  Church,  was  the 
Scotch  version,  popularly  but  erroneously  called  Rouse's  ver- 
sion. Many,  incited  by  a  spirit  of  willful  ignorance  or  bitter 
malignity  against  God's  own  Word,  have  ever  heralded  it  to 
the  world  that  it  is  Rouse's  version  of  the  Psalms  and  not  the 
Psalms,  to  which  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  is  wedded. 
The  disseminators  of  such  a  gratuitous  falsehood  are  to  be 
pitied  rather  than  despised.  Such  statements  are  directly 
contradicted  by  the  Synod's  Act  of  1797.  In  that  Act  they 
say : 


342  HISTORY  OF  the 

Whekeas,  The  poetical  version  of  the  Psalms,  commonly  called  the  Psalms  of 
David,  which  hitherto  has  been  used  amongst  us,  is  a  safe  translation  of  these 
Psalms,  and  has  been  instrumental  in  promoting  sincere  and  unaffected  devotion; 
it  shall  be  retained  in  the  congregations  under  the  inspection  of  this  Synod  till 
another  version  equally  safe  and  acceptable  and  more  adapted  to  the  improved 
state  of  the  English  language  shall  be  prepared. 

This  is  all  the  fathers  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  say 
about  Rouse's  version  of  the  Psalms.  Had  they  said  less,  they 
would  have  subjected  themselves  to  the  charge  of  illiterate 
stupidity  while  poets  continue  to  be  born  and  not  made. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  on  psalmody 
has  always  been  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  sing,  in  the 
public  and  private  worship  of  God,  the  Psalms  of  the  Bible  in 
the  best  version  that  can  be  obtained,  and  that  the  church  has 
no  authority  in  God's  "VYord,  and,  consequently,  no  authority  at 
all  to  sing  any  hymns,  in  the  formal  worship  of  God,  that  are 
composed  by  uninspired  men. 

This,  it  is  readily  admitted,  is  higher  ground  than  that  taken 
by  the  Secession  fathers  ;  but  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
principles  laid  down  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 
In  the  use  of  any  other  system  of  psalmody  there  is  a  constant 
and  unavoidable  liability  to  worship  God  in  a  way  not  ap- 
pointed in  his  Word.  Any  and  every  departure  from  the  prin- 
ciple on  psalmody  adopted  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
is,  in  its  very  nature,  so  far  an  encroachment  upon  the  primary' 
notion  of  Presbyterianism,  and  has  a  direct  tendency  to  prop- 
agate gross  errors  and  perpetuate  divisions  in  the  church  of 
God. 

This  law  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  was,  by  Dr. 
John  M.  Mason,  violated  in  1810.  His  example  was  followed 
by  others,  to  the  great  grief  of  not  a  few. 

In  1816  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  sent  up  a  remonstrance 
to  the  General  Synod.  The  thing  mostly  complained  of  in  this 
remonstrance  is  the  scheme  of  communion  lately  introduced  by 
some  into  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  Kothing  can  be 
plainer  than  that  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  desired  communion 
restricted  to  organic  communion,  and  that  "  composures  merel}" 
human"  be  entirely  excluded  from  the  worship  of  God,  Be- 
cause they  could  not  prevail  upon  the  General  Synod  to  do 
these  two  things,  they  asked  and  obtained  permission  to  be- 
come an  independent,  coordinate  S\niod.     On  becoming  a  sep- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  343 

arate  organization,  the  Associate  Eeformed  Synod  of  the  South 
repealed  no  act  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  adopted  no 
new  principle,  and  inaugurated  no  new  practice  respecting 
either  psalmody  or  communion. 


344  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

GENERAL  SYNOD  DISSOLVED  soon  after  the  Organization  of  the  Synod  of 
the  South — Synods  of  New  York.  Scioto  and  of  the  South  Remain — Their 
Right  to  the  Theological  Library  Asserted — Character  of  the  Union  Formed 
by  the  General  Synod  with  the  General  Assembly — Gloomy  Period  in  the 
History  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church — Death  of  L-win,  Rogers,  Mc- 
Knight.  Blackstock  and  Hemphill — Death  of  Two  Theological  Students,  Mc- 
Jimsey  and  Boyce — Dr.  J.  T.  Pressley  Called  to  Pittsburgh — Samuel  P. 
Pressly  AVent  to  Athens — Missionary  Labors  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  South — Dr.  Cooi^er.  of  South  Carolina  College — Action  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  Concerning  Him — His  Charges 
Against  Clergymen — Dr.  Cooper's  Influence — The  Part  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  Took  in  His  Removal. 

On  Monday,  April  the  1st,  1822,  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  South  began  its  separate  existence.  Rev.  Eleazer 
Harris  was  moderator.  One  month  and  twenty  days  after  this 
transaction,  the  General  Synod  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  or  a  part  of  it,  deliberately  resolved  itself  out  of  exist- 
ence. Three  fragmentary  parts  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  remained  firm  to  the  principles  and  practices  which 
they  had  pledged  themselves  to  support.  These  were  the  Syn- 
ods of  Xew  York,  Scioto  and  the  South.  They  were  widely 
separated  from  each  other  ;  and  although  each  had  pledged  its 
adherence  to  the  same  Confession  of  Faith,  form  of  Church 
Government  and  Directory  for  AVorship,  each  one  was  inde- 
pendent of  the  other  two.  In  the  property  which  once  be- 
longed to  the  General  Synod  they  liad  an  equal  right.  The 
Synod  of  Scioto  had  forfeited  its  legal  claims,  by  declaring  itself 
independent,  before  the  union  was  formed.  This  matter  was 
not  forgotten  by  the  Synod  of  the  South.  The  First  Presby- 
tery, in  its  annual  report  to  the  Synod,  recommended  that : 

••  In  the  event  the  contemplated  union  of  the  Northern  Synods  (those  of  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania)  with  the  General  Assembly  be  effected,  that  the  proper 
steps  be  taken  by  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  to  secure  a  due  portion  of  the 
theological  library  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church." 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  34&- 

This  matter  was  duly  considered  by  the  Synod  of  the  South. 
On  the  second  day  of  its  first  meeting  it  was 

••  Resolved,  That  the  Rev.  John  T.  Pressley  be.  and  he  hereby  is.  directed  to  no- 
tify the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  our  claim  in  the  theo- 
logical library  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church;  and  that,  in  the  issue  of  the 
transfer  of  the  same  to  the  seminary  at  Princeton,  we  will  not  relinquish  our 
right,  unless  absolutely  compelled.'' 

.  In  addition  to  the  above,  the  following  resolution,  adopted 
by  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  Synod,  was  sent  to  the  General 
Synod : 

•■  Resolved,  That  the  Rev.  J.  T.  Pressley  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  directed  to  assert^ 
in  the  letter  to  the  General  Synod,  our  claim  in  the  theological  library  of  our 
church;  and  that  we  do,  therefore,  protest  against  a  transfer  of  it  to  the  theo- 
logical seminary  at  Princeton."' 

The  Synod  of  the  South,  it  is  evident,  took  it  for  granted 
that  "the  contemplated  union"  would  be  effected.  In  this 
they  Avere  not  mistaken.  Events  had  been  drifting  in  that 
direction  so  long  and  the  current  was  so  strong,  that  they 
w-isely  concluded  it  could  not  be  successfully  resisted.  They 
were  wrong,  however,  as  the  event  showed,  in  concluding  that 
the  Synod  of  Xew  York  would  go  into  the  union.  This  it  did 
not  do. 

.  The  union  was,  by  an  act  of  high  handed  ecclesiastical  tyr- 
ranny,  efi'ected;  the  theological  library  was  transferred  in 
stealthy  haste  to  Princeton,  and  was,  after  man}'  long  years  of 
vexatious  litigation,  surrendered  to  the  Synod  of  New  York  in 
1837  ;  but  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  neither 
asked  for  nor  received  any  i^art  of  it. 

From  1822  to  the  founding  of  Erskine  College,  was,  on  ac- 
count of  several  reasons,  a  gloomy  period  in  the  history  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South.  Death,  that  fell  mon- 
ster, who,  in  the  language  of  a  Latin  poet,  "  knocks  impartially 
at  the  door  of  the  poor  man's  hut  and  at  the  palace  of  the 
great,"  began  his  work.  In  1824  Rev.  Robert  Irwin  died,aiid 
in  less  than  two  years,  beginning  with  August  the  21st,  1830, 
James  Rogers,  James  McKnight,  William  Blackstock  and 
John  Hemphill  were  taken  away  from  the  scenes  of  their 
earthly  labors  to  their  eternal  reward.  Two  students  of  the- 
ology— John  McJimsey  and  James  S.  Boyco,  both  having  nearly 
completed  their  theological  course — were  stricken  down,  the 


346  HISTORY    OF    THE 

former  in  the  fall  of  1828  and  the  latter  in  the  fall  of  1829. 
In  1831,  E,ev.,  afterward  Dr.,  John  T.  Pressley  went  to  Pitts- 
burgh as  professor  of  theology  in  the  seminarj',  but  recently 
established  in  that  citj^,  and  shortly  afterward  Rev.  Samuel  P. 
Pressley  went  to  Georgia  as  professor  in  the  college  at  Athens. 

These  were  truly  dark  days,  but  ministers  and  people  seem 
to  have  clung  together  with  a  firmness  and  steadiness  which  is 
truly  wonderful.  If  any  one  was  disheartened  he  never  made 
it  known.     Each  in  his  station  was  faithful  unto  death. 

One  of  the  features  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  is  that 
it  has  always  been  a  missionar}'  church.  Those  old  men,  Black- 
stock  and  Grier,  rode  on  several  occasions  over  Florida,  Georgia, 
Alabama,  Temiessee  and  Kentucky,  preaching  the  gospel  to  the 
people  in  connection  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in 
these  States. 

These  missionary  eiforts  began  at  a  ver}-  early  period  in  the 
history  of  the  Synod.  In  1819  Rev.  John  T.  Pressley,  by  di- 
rection of  the  Synod,  spent  two  mouths  in  laboring  among  the 
scattered  vacancies  in  Georgia  and  Alabama.  In  his  report  to 
Synod  he  stated  that  he  had  rode  more  than  nine  hundred 
miles  and  preached  on  every  alternate  day. 

In  1822,  Rev.  Isaac  Grier  spent  three  months,  and  Rev. 
William  Blackstock  three  and  one-half  months  as  missionaries 
in  the  West.  The  labors  of  Mr.  Grier  were  conlined  to  the 
settlements  in  Georgia  and  Alabama,  while  those  of  Mr.  Black- 
stock  extended  as  far  as  Obion  county,  Tennessee.  These  mis- 
sionary tours  were  repeated  annually  by  some  member  or  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod.  The  missionaries,  Blackstock,  Pressley, 
Strong,  Grier  and  Harris,  traversed  over  the  whole  of  the  ter- 
ritor}^  included  in  the  States  of  Florida,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Ten- 
nessee and  Kentuck}'.  On  one  of  these  tours  a  missionar}'- 
would  ride  on  horseback,  through  a  countrj'  sparsely  populated, 
more  than  two  thousand  miles,  preach  twice  on  every  Sabbath 
and  frequentl}-  on  week  days. 

About  the  year  1822,  or  perhaps  three  or  four  years  previous 
to  that  date,  petitions  for  preaching  began  to  be  sent  to  the 
Synod,  from  Obion,  Union,  Hopewell  (Maury  county).  Pros- 
perity, Bethel,  Head  Spring,  and  Hopewell  (Lincoln  county), 
Tennessee;  and  from  K^anafalia,  Pine  Barren,  Russell's Yalley, 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  Sil 

Salem,  Tallahassee,  Zalmonah,  Js^ew  Ireland,  Fair  View,  Pros- 
perity, Cahawba  Settlement,  and  perhaps  a  few  others  in 
Alabama.  In  the  Cahawba  Settlement  there  were,  in  1822, 
iifty  communicants.  To  these  Rev.  Isaac  Grier  preached  and 
administered  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  All  these 
vacancies,  together  witli  those  mentioned  elsewhere,  depended 
upon  the  Synod  of  the  South  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 
and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments. 

Under  the  peculiar  circumstances  the  Synod  could  not  sup- 
ply fully  the  spiritual  wants  of  these  communities.  Every 
eftbrt  that  mortal  men  could  make  was  exerted.  They  wrote 
to  the  Synod  of  the  West  and  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  Scot- 
land for  ministerial  assistance,  and  an  eftbrt  was  made  to  unite 
with  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas.  Xo  assistance 
came  from  Scotland,  and  a  union  was  not  eftected  with  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas,  and  but  little  assistance  was 
received  from  the  Synod  of  the  "West.. 

Prior  to  1822  occasionally  laborers  were  sent  from  the  North- 
ern Synods ;  after  that  time  the  Synod  of  the  South  was  left  to 
struggle  unaided,  with  all  its  surrounding  difficulties.  They 
wrote  lettei^  to  the  vacancies,  visited  them  in  person  as  often 
as  was  possible,  but  in  spite  of  all  their  eftbrts,  several  of  these 
vacancies  became  disheartened  and  gradually  coalesced  with 
other  Christian  denominations.  Some  of  them  joined  the 
Baptist,  some  the  Methodist ;  but  the  larger  number  united 
with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

At  the  time  that  the  Synod  of  the  South  began  its  separate 
existence.  Dr.  Thomas  Cooper  was  President  of  South  Carolina 
College.  Dr.  Cooper  had,  in  his  day,  the  reputation  of  being 
a  man  of  prodigious  learning.  He  was  a  lawyer,  a  physician, 
a  chemist,  a  mineralogist,  a  geologist  and  a  politician.  For  a 
time,  he  was  the  idol  of  the  great.  It  was  not  long,  however,, 
before  his  influence  began  to  weaken  in  some  sections  of  the 
State.  The  college  over  which  he  presidecl  became  the  scene 
of  great  and  disgraceful  disorders.. 

Dr.  Cooper's  learning  was  certainl}-  very  extensive,  but  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  he  was  either  profound  or  accurate. 
He  had  read,  much  and  thouo-ht  little. 


348  HISTORY    OF    THE 

This,  however,  would  have  caused  no  disturbance  in  the  col- 
lege and  produced  no  want  of  confidence  in  him  by  the  people 
of  the  State.  In  addition  to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Cooper  had  the 
reputation  of  being  a  learned  man,  it  was  certainly  known  that 
he  had  no  sympathy  with  the  religion  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
His  much  learning,  if  such  was  really  the  case,  had  made  him  mad. 
He  began  insidiously  to  poison  the  minds  of  the  youth  of  the 
country.  Many  good  people  became  alarmed.  The  South  Caroli- 
na College  was  a  State  institution,  founded  by  the  State  and  sup- 
ported by  the  State.  It  really  belonged  to  the  people  of  South 
Carolina.  Their  money  built  its  halls,  furnished  its  library 
and  apparatus,  and  supported  its  professors. 

In  this  institution  the  people  of  the  State  felt  a  peculiar  in- 
terest. They  could  point  to  its  splendid  buildings,  its  fine  ap- 
jiaratus  and  its  extensive  library  with  pride.  In  it  they  ex- 
pected their  sons  to  be  trained  for  honorable  and  useful  stations 
in  life.  The  people  of  the  State  were  a  Christian  people,  and 
since  the  South  Carolina  College  belonged  to  them  they  had  a 
right  to  demand  that  nothing  prejudicial  to  the  Christian  reli- 
gion be  taught  within  its  walls.  This  expectation  they  did 
hot  realize  in  Dr.  Cooper.  Adroitly  he,  by  insinuations  and 
innuendoes,  poisoned  the  minds  of  the  youth  of  the  country 
placed  under  his  care. 

It  is  probable,  as  is  testified  by  those  who  were  students  in 
the  South  Carolina  College  during  his  connection  with  it,  that 
Dr.  Cooper  rarely  boldly  attacked  the  Christian  religion  in 
the  class-room.  He  was  too  crafty  to  do  this.  By  apparently 
careless  remarks  and  unimportant  criticisms  he  ettected  his 
purpose  more  successfully.  That  he  did  make  some  infidels,  no 
one  at  all  acquainted  with  the  moral  or  religious  history  of  some 
of  those  who  waited  upon  his  instruction  will  doubt. 

The  people  of  the  State,  and  especially  of  the  up-country, 
were  struck  ^vitli  astonishment.  Among  the  first,  if  not  the 
very  first,  to  sound  the  alarm  was  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  South.  In  his  report  to  the  Legislature  in  1822, 
Dr.  Cooper  charged  the  clergymen  of  the  State  with  all  the 
misfortunes  which  Ttere  befalling  the  college.  The  following 
is  his  language : 

"  The  most  powerful  obstacle  to  the  prosperity  of  this  institution  is  the  sys- 
tematic hostility  of  the  clergy  generally,  to  any  seminary  of  education  which  is 
not  placed  under  their  government  and  control." 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  349 

This  was  a  grave  charge,  and  one  Avorthy  of  careful  investi- 
gation. Surely  Dr.  Cooper  did  not  expect  the  Legislature  of 
South  Carolina  so  far  to  stultify  themselves  in  the  eyes  of  all 
the  civilized  nations  on  earth,  as  to  believe  that  he  uttered  the 
truth  ?     They  knew  that  what  he  said  was  false. 

Protestant  clergymen  ever  have  beeu  the  fosterers  of  institu- 
tions of  learning,  and  they  have  never  claimed  that  it  was 
their  sole  prerogative  to  govern  and  control  these  institutions. 
It  is  true  that  there  have  been  but  few  institutions  of  any  note 
in  which  clergymen  have  had  no  control. 

At  its  meeting  in  April,  1823,  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod 
of  the  South  prepared  and  ordered  to  be  published  in  one  of 
the  weekly  papers  of  the  State  an  address  to  the  people  of  the 
State.  In  this  address  they  deny  that  the  ministers  of  the 
gospel  are  opposed  to  the  College  of  South  Carolina,  and  ap- 
peal from  the  "  illiberal,  unrighteous  and  sweeping  charge  of 
the  learned  president  against  the  ministers  of  reconciliation,  to 
the  candor  and  good  sense  of  the  Christian  commonwealth." 
Soon  after  this  a  controversy  sprung  up  between  Dr.  Cooper 
and  a  minister  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Sj-nod.  The  people 
of  the  State  were  thoroughly  aroused.  In  December,  1831,  the 
Ibllowing  resolution  was  introduced  into  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives by  a  graduate  of  the  South  Carolina  College,  and 
who  afterwards  was  a  minister  in  tlie  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  Soiith,  viz.: 

''  Besolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  House  it  is  expedient  that  the  board 
of  trustees  of  the  South  Carolina  College  do  forthwith  investigate  the  conduct 
of  Dr.  Cooper,  as  President  of  the  South  Carolina  College,  and  if  they  find  that 
his  continuance  in  office  defeats  the  ends  and  aims  of  the  institution,  that  they 
be  requested  to  remove  him." 

The  board  of  trustees  of  the  college  found  nothing  in  the 
charges  which  were  brought  against  Dr.  Cooper,  which  they 
thought  rendered  his  continuance  in  office  detrimental  to  the 
good  of  the  college.  It  was  not  so  with  the  people  of  the  State. 
jSTothing  would  satisf}^  the  friends  of  the  college  but  the  re- 
moval of  Dr.  Cooper.  "  The  cry  of  revolution  and  reorganiza- 
tion was  again  heard  echoing  and  reechoing  from  the  moun- 
tain to  the  seaboard."  E^othing  would  satisfy  an  insulted 
Christian  people  but  the  removal  of  the  man  who  had  dared 
to  stigmatize  their  religion  as  a  farce.     They  had  hired  him  to 


350  HISTORY    OF    THE 

teach  chemistry,  but  he  went  out  of  his  way  to  instill  infidel 
notions  into  the  minds  of  their  children,  and  nothing  would, 
satisfy  them  but  his  removal,  and  he  accordingly  was  removed. 

The  part  which  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  took  in  the  mat- 
ter of  removing  Dr,  Cooper  is  highl}'  creditable  to  them  as  Chris- 
tian ministers  and.  citizens  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina.  It 
may  be  said  it  was  a  matter  with  which  they  were  not  imme- 
diately concerned.  This  is  not  even  plausible.  They  were 
citizens  of  the  State,  and  the  South  Carolina  College  was  the 
Alma  Mater  of,  at  least,  three  of  the  ministers  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  South,  and  of  quite  a  number  of  her 
members.  The  South  Carolina  College,  being  a  State  institu- 
tion, all  the  citizens  of  the  State — the  humble  as  well  as  the 
high — had  an  interest  in  its  welfare.  Under  the  administra- 
tion of  Dr.  Cooper  it  had  made  a  fair  start  to  spread  infidel 
notions  broadcast  over  the  State. 

The  influence  of  Dr.  Cooper  for  evil  was  certainly  very  irreat. 
His  life  had  been  spent  in  a  continuous  storm.  He  seems  to 
have  taken  a  peculiar  pleasure  in  disturbing  the  peace  of  every 
community  in  which  he  was  thrown,  either  by  accident  or 
business.  All  his  literary  and  scientific  works  perished  with 
him.  Very  few  of  the  present  day  have  ever  seen  his  infidel 
l)roductions,  and  no  one  ever  thinks  of  reading  them.  In  fact 
they  have  no  merit  in  them.  His  fame  rested  solely  on  his 
wonderful  powers  as  a  lecturer.  He  hated  all  his  life  the 
Christian  religion,  and,  perhaps,  without  designing  it,  trans- 
ferred his  hatred  to  those  who  professed  it.  In  this  opposition  to 
Christianity,  Dr.  Cooper  was  honest,  if  sucli  a  thing  be  possible. 
Ho  thought  as  he  spoke,and  spoke  as  bethought.  He  was  neither 
a  sycophant  nor  a  hypocrite.  This  made  him  the  more  dan- 
gerous to  the  morals  of  those  whom  it  was  his  business  to  in- 
struct. The  simple  fact  that  it  was  known  that  Dr.  Cooper 
was  an  infidel,  led  many  a  thoughtless  young  man  to  weigh 
anchor  and  set  sail  on  the  ocean  of  infidel  vagaries.  Dr. 
Cooper  exhumed  errors  long  buried,  paraded  before  the  world 
their  ghastly  forms,  and  polluted  society  with  their  noisome 
stench.  Some  3'oung  men  by  him  were  ruined,  and  the  use- 
fulness of  others  was  for  years  greatly  hindered. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  351 

The  Associate  Reformed  Synod  took  an  honorable  and  use- 
ful part  in  vindicating  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  pre- 
venting the  spread  of  opinions  which  were  calculated  to  sap 
the  very  foundations  of  society.  Had  not  a  prompt  and  vig- 
orous effort  been  made  by  the  Christian  people  of  South  Caro- 
lina in  opposition  to  the  false  and  dangerous  opinions  held  and 
propagated  by  Dr.  Cooper,  no  one  can  safely  estimate  what 
would  have  been  the  consequences.  As  it  was,  the  morals  of 
the  State  were  polluted,  the  spread  of  the  gospel  impeded,  and 
it  may  be,  the  judgments  (f  God  called  down  upon  the  land. 


352  ^  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  WANT  OF  A  COLLEGE  Eetarded  the  Growth  of  the  Synod  of  the  South- 
Students  went  North  to  be  Educated — Classical  Schools  Established  in  the 
Synod  —  Theological  Professors  Appointed — Attempt  to  Reorganize  the 
General  Synod — Letter  Sent  to  the  Synods  of  New  York  and  Scioto — Dele- 
gates meet  at  Pittsburgh,  on  the  12th  of  September,  1827 — Basis  of  Union 
Adopted  and  sent  to  the  Presbyteries — Disapproved  and  no  Union  Formed — 
Union  of  the  Synods  of  New  York  and  of  the  West  in  1856 — The  Subject  of 
Slavery  Introduced  into  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  West  by  Emi- 
grants from  the  South — Overture  from  Hepewell,  Ohio — Curious  Facts  in 
Respect  to  this  Overture — Anti-Slavery  Sentiments  of  Southern  Origin — 
The  First  Presbytery  of  Ohio — Its  Pastors  Born  in  the  South — The  Synod  of 
the  South  Memorialize  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina — The  People  of 
the  United  States  become  Wildly  Fanatical  on  Slavery,  Pro  and  Con — Synod 
of  the  South  never  Ultra  on  Slavery. 

Among  the  many  things  which  retarded  the  early  growth  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South,  may  be  reckoned 
the  want  of  a  college  and  a  theological  seminary.  The  field 
to  be  cultivated  was  sufficient  to  have  employed  at  least  thirty 
laborers,  and  there  were  only  about  twelve,  and  one-half  of 
these  was  becoming  burdened  with  the  weight  of  3'ears.  Sixty 
3'ears  ago  colleges  and  theological  seminaries  Avere  few  in 
the  South.  JL>3'  a  law  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  which 
had  been  rigidly  observed  since  the  days  of  the  Erskines,  no 
man  could  be  admitted  to  preach  the  gospel  who  had  not  com- 
pleted a  classical  course  of  learning  in  some  college  or  universi- 
ty, and  studied  theology  under  some  competent  instructor 
for  several  years.  This  was  the  law  in  all  the  secession 
branches  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  also  in  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church. 

At  a  very  early  period  classical  schools  were  established  b}' 
members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  About  the  be- 
ginning of  the  present  century,  Rev.  James  Rogers  opened  a 
classical  school  at  Monticello,  Fairfield  county,  South  Carolina. 
This  institution,  although  neither  owned  nor  controlled  entire- 
ly by  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  was  presided  over  for 
more  than  a  rjuarter  of  a  century  by  an  Associate  Reformed 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  353 

minister  and  largely  patronized  by  Associate  Reformed  people. 
In  1825  a  petition  was  sent  to  the  Sjmod,  praying  that  the  Ebene- 
zer  Acadeni}^,  in  York  county,  be  taken  under  its .  patronage. 
This  petition  the  Synod  granted.  Both  of  these  institutions 
made  for  themselves  an  honorable  reputation.  They  were 
largely  patronized  by  the  adjoining  States ;  and  by  Rev.  James 
Rogers  and  Rev.  Eleazar  Harris  were  educated  a  number  of 
young  men  who  became  distinguished  at  the  forum,  and  on  the 
bench,  and  as  governors,  physicians  and  theologians. 

Besides  these,  there  were  a  number  of  other  classical  schools 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
South.  These  all  subserved  a  good  purpose,  but  there  was  no 
college  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina  which  the  members  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church  could  conscientiously  patron- 
ize.    This  Avas  the  case  from  1820  to  1830. 

During  that  period,  young  men  in  connection  w^ith  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  having  the  gospel  ministry  in  view, 
were  placed  under  the  necessity  of  going  several  hundred 
miles — some  to  Jefterson  College,  and  others  to  Miami  Uni- 
versity— that  they  might  prepare  themselves  for  their  work. 

To  meet  in  part  the  exigencies  of  their  circumstances,  the 
Synod  determined,  in  1825,  to  establish  a  theological  seminar}-. 
They  did  not  undertake  to  collect  funds  for  the  purpose  of  fit- 
ting up  a  seminary  with  all  the  modern  improvements  and 
advantages.  They  simply  adopted  a  resolution  establishing  a 
theological  school,  with  the  Rev.  John  Hemphill,  professor  of 
didactic  and  polemic  theology,  and  the  Rev.  John  T.  Pressley, 
professor  of  oriental  languages,  Biblical  criticisms  and  church 
history. 

Under  the  circumstances,  this  was,  in  all  probability,  the  best 
that  the  Synod  could  do.  That  was  a  day  of  small  things,  and 
it  may  be  added,  strange  things.  The  professors  were  distant 
from  each  other  fully  one  hundred  miles.  It  is  clear  that  the 
students  would  be  under  the  necessity  of  completing  one  thing 
at  a  time.  They  could  not  recite  on  church  history  and 
polemic  theolog}'  on  the  same  day  to  the  professors  appointed 
ibr  these  several  departments.  It  is  very  probable  that  the 
work  fell  mainly  upon  ]SIr.  Pressley.  Mr.  Hemphill  was  an 
old  man,  and  began  to  decline  rapidly  in  the  course  of  a  few 
24 


354  HISTORY    OF    THE 

years.  He,  for  some  time,  discharged  the  duties  imposed  upon 
him  by  the  church  ;  but  how  long,  and  to  what  extent  is  not 
certain!}^  known. 

In  1827,  Mr.  Hemphill  tendered  his  resignation,  which  was 
accepted.  From  that  time  to  the  fall  of  1831,  Mr.  Pressley 
was  "sole  teacher  of  theology,"  by  appointment  of  the  Synod. 

In  1826  the  Synod  resolved  that  a  theological  fund  be  estab- 
lished, and  that  the  members  of  Synod  be  directed  to  make 
collections  in  their  different  congregations  for  this  purpose. 
Rev.  Samuel  P.  Presslej'^  wAs  appointed  treasurer  of  this  fund. 

About  this  time  (1825)  an  effort  was  made  to  colleot  a  library 
for  the  use  of  the  theological  seminary.  Some  success  attended 
this  effort,  but  how  great  is  not  certainly  known. 

The  S^^nod  of  the  South  continued,  on  all  proper  occasions, 
to  direct  their  attention  to  the  recovery  of  the  theological 
library,  transferred  from  ISTew  York  to  Princeton,  at  the  time 
of  the  so-called  union  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  and 
the  Presbj'terian  Church.  To  accomplish  this,  as  well  as  some 
other  ends,  the  Synod  of  the  South  deemed  it  necessary  that 
the  General  Synod,  which  perished  in  1822,  1x3  reorganized. 
In  1826,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted,  viz. : 

"  That  an  aggregate  meeting  of  the  three  Synods  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  is  a  most  desirable  and  important  object,  and  that  should  our  sister 
Synods  concur,  this  meeting  be  held  in  the  city  of  Pittsburgh,  on  the  first  Mon- 
day of  September,  1827." 

This  resolution,  together  with  a  letter,  prepared  by  order  of 
Synod  by  Pev.  Samuel  P.  Pressley  and  Rev.  Isaac  Grier,  was 
sent  to  the  Synods  of  the  West  and  Xew  York.  The  follow- 
ing is  the  letter: 

Dear  Bbethren  : — Since  the  year  1822.  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in 
the  United  States  has  been  in  a  dismembered  state.  Its  existence  as  an  organ- 
ized society  has  scarcely  been  recognized  by  those  who  reckon  up  the  denomina- 
tions of  Christendom.  The  General  Synod,  once  the  common  center  of  motion 
and  attraction,  having  dissolved,  the  parts  once  attracted  to  and  moved  bj'  it 
have  moved  off  in  divergent  courses.  By  the  above  extract  you  will  perceive 
that  this  Synod  is  anxious  to  collect  the  disunited  parts  of  our  once  organized 
church,  to  combine  whatever  of  wisdom,  prudence  and  piety,  may  be  in  our 
several  Synods,  to  promote  the  common  salvation  of  the  church  and  the  glory 
of  her  Lord. 

We  cannot,  in  the  compass  of  a  single  letter,  fully  exhibit  those  reasons  which 
influence  this  Synod  to  adopt  the  above  resolution.  But  a  few  of  them  shall  be 
briefly  stated. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  355 

1.  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  library,  formerly  belonging  to  our  seminary  in 
New  York,  never  can  be  recovered,  unless  the  General  Synod  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  be  reorganized.  The  body  to  which  this  library  once  be- 
longed does  not  formally  exist;  and  though  its  component  parts  exist,  it  cannot 
be  treated  with  until  it  be  reorganized.  We  are,  therefore,  of  opinion  that  every 
consideration  which  makes  it  desirable  to  recover  the  funds  and  library  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church,  urges  upon  our  Synods  the  necessity  of  reorganiza- 
tion.    And  this  subject  will  very  properly  come  before  the  Convention. 

2.  The  fact  that  we  have  so  long  remained  independent  and  unconnected  has 
been  thought  to  be  indication  of  a  want  of  love  and  confidence.  It  has  been 
thought  and  said  that  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  is  extinct,  that  confidence 
between  its  parts  is  lost,  that  though  its  Synods  do  profess  to  adhere  to  the  com- 
mon standards  they  do  not  associate  upon  common  principles  of  like  faith  and 
hope.  Representations  of  this  kind  are  unfavorable  to  the  growth  and  respect- 
ability of  our  church.  And  in  order  to  show  oar  sympathy  and  confidence,  and 
to  prevent  misrepresentation,  we  plead  for  the  reorganization. 

3.  Our  Church  has  always  insisted  upon  the  necessity  of  a  well  educated  min- 
istry. On  this  subject  we  agree  with  our  fathers.  And  the  want  of  an  approved 
and  well  conducted  school  of  the  prophets  is  an  affliction  to  our  Synod.  The 
effectiveness  and  respectability  of  the  church's  ministry  are  intimately  connected 
with  the  existence  of  a  well  regulated  theological  seminary.  To  establish  and 
conduct  such  a  seminary,  requires  the  wisdom,  influence  and  wealth  of  the  whole 
church.  Our  Synods,  in  their  disunited  state,  are  not  adequate  to  this  enter- 
prise. Our  Church  rose  with  the  rise  of  our  former  seminary,  nor  did  the 
General  Synod  long  survive  the  suspension  of  its  operations.  Let  us  then  re- 
organize our  General  Synod,  that  so  our  seminary  may  resume  its  operations. 
We  say  kesume;  for,  from  the  minutes  of  the  General  Synod  for  the  year  1821, 
you  will  perceive  that  the  operations  of  the  seminary  were  suspended  before  the 
dissolution  of  the  General  Synod  had  taken  place.  This  fact  induces  us  to  think 
that  if  General  Synod  were  reorganized,  and  the  operations  of  the  seminary 
were  resumed,  our  library  might  probably  be  regained. 

Other  reasons  might  be  ruentioned,  but  we  forbear.  Our  Synod  was  unani- 
mous in  the  above  resolution.  We  cannot  express  the  anxiety  which  we  feel  to 
knov  the  views  of  our  sister  Synods  on  the  subject.  We  claim  no  prerogatives,  but 
to  expedite  the  matter,  we  have  specified  a  time  and  place  of  meeting,  in  which 
we  hope  our  brethren  will  concur.  It  is  upon  the  ground  of  common  faith, 
hope  and  charity,  as  also  of  presbyterial  parity,  that  we  propose  to  meet.  We 
hope  you  will  consider  these  things  in  your  Synods  respectively,  and  that  as  soon 
as  may  be  practicable,  you  will  make  us  acquainted  with  the  result  of  your  de- 
liberations. 

Praying  that  the  Head  of  the  Church  may  direct  you  in  all  your  deliberations, 
and  in  this  business  particularly,  we  subscribe  ourselves. 

Your  brethren, 

JOHN  RENWICK, 

Moderator. 

The  Synod  of  the  "West  met  at  Cadiz,  Ohio,  in  April,  1827, 
and  adopted  the  following  resolutions,  viz. : 


356  HISTORY    OF    THE 

"  Resolved,  By  Messrs.  Graham  and  Johnson,  that  we  concur  with  our  brethren 
of  the  Southern  Synod  in  considering  a  meeting  of  delegates  from  the  three 
Synods  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Cliurch,  in  convention,  a  desirable  and  most 
important  object. 

^^  Resolved,  That  Messrs.  Thomas  Smith,  Joseph  Kerr.  David  Proudfit.  Alex- 
ander Porter  and  William  Baldridge,  ministers,  be  appointed  delegates  to  at- 
tend the  meeting  of  this  kind  which  has  been  proposed,  and  that  this  meeting 
be  held  at  Pittsburgh,  on  the  second  Monday  of  September,  1827." 

The  Synod  of  New  York  met  at  Schenectad}',  in  May,  1827, 
and  adopted  the  following  resolutions,  viz. : 

^^  Resolved,  That  this  Synod  receive,  with  much  respect  and  affection,  the 
friendly  communications  from  our  sister  Synods  of  the  South  and  West. 

^'Resolved,  That  this  Synod  will,  and  hereby  do,' appoint  two  delegates,  viz.: 
The  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander  Proudfit  and  the  Rev.  Donald  C.  McLaren,  to  meet  with 
delegates  from  the  South  and  West  at  Pittsburgh,  on  the  12th  day  of  Septem- 
ber next." 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  resolutions,  adopted  by  the 
Synods  of  the  West  and  ISTorth,  that  the  proposition  for  a  meet- 
ing of  the  three  -Associate  Reformed  Synods  apparently  met 
their  hearty  approval.  The  plan  contemplated  by  the  S^'nod 
of  the  South  seems  to  have  been  that  the  ministers  of  the  three 
Synods  meet  at  Pittsburgh,  as  a  whole  ;  or  that,  as  they  say,  in 
the  arigregatc.  This  plan,  for  reasons  not  stated,  was  changed 
by  the  Synod  of  the  West,  and  a  meeting  by  delegates  ap- 
pointed. The  delegates,  who  were  all  ministers,  were  to 
equal,  in  the  aggregate,  the  number  of  presbyteries  in  the 
Synods. 

At  nine  o'clock,  on  the  12th  of  September,  1827,  all  the 
delegates  appointed  by  the  Synods  of  the  West,  and  Rev.  John 
T.  Fressley  and  Rev.  Isaac  drier,  delegates  appointed  by  the 
Synod  of  the  SOuth,  met  at  Pittsburgh.  At  three  o'clock  of 
the  same  day,  Rev.  Donald  C.  McLaren  and  William  ISTisbet, 
delegates  from  the  Synod  of  New  York,  appeared  and  took 
their  seats. 

The  meeting  was  organized  by  calling  Rev.  Alexander 
Porter  to  the  chair,  and  appointing  Rev.  John  T.  Pressley, 
secretary. 

The  object  of  the  Convention  being  mainly  to  devise  some 
plan  by  which  the  three  Associate  Reformed  Synods  might 
be  united,  the  following  preamble  and  resolution  was  presented 
by  Rev.  Messrs.  Pressley  and  Proudfit,  viz. : 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  35Y 

Whereas,  Some  visible  bond  of  union  among  those  who  are  one  in  faith,  is 
a  most  important  and  desirable  object;  And  ivhereas,  By  a  series  of  unhappy 
events,  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  has  been  thrown  into  a  dismembered 
condition:  And  ivhereas.  It  is  believed  that  the  general  interest  of  truth  and 
godliness  in  the  world,  and  particularly  in  the  Associate  Eeformed  Church, 
might  be  efficientlj-  promoted  by  a  union  of  effort:  therefore. 

Resolved.  1.  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Convention  it  is  expedient  that  the 
General  Synod  be  reorganized. 

2.  That  in  the  reorganizing  General  Synod,  the  respective  Synods,  for  our  mu 
tual  satisfaction,  and  for  the  promotion  of  mutual  confidence,  solemnly  renew  our 
professions  of  adherence  to  the  Constitution  and  Standards  of  this  Church,  as 
adopted  by  the  Act  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  at  Greencastle.  on  the  31st 
of  May.  1799. 

And  ichereas.  The  peace  of  this  Church  has.  in  times  past,  been  greatly  in- 
terrupted, and  her  very  existence  endangered,  by  the  disputes  which  have  existed 
on  the  subjects  of  psalmody  and  communion  ;  therefore. 

Resolved  3.  That  we  solemnly  renew  our  profession  of  adherence  to  the  Act  of 
the  General  Synod,  explanatory  of , the  sense  in  which  the  doctrine  of  this  church 
on  these  subjects  is  understood,  particularly  the  Acts  of  1790.  1793.  1799  and 
1820.     Of  which  Acts  the  following  are  extracts  : 

"An  Act  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Sj-nod,"  passed 
in  1790.  The  Synod  declare  that  they  understand  the  2t)th  Chapter  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  ••  as  opposed  not  only  to  bigotry,  which,  at  least  by  implica- 
tion, appropriates  to  a  particular  denomination  of  Christians,  the  character  and 
privilege  of  the  Catholic  Church:  but  also  to  the  scheme  of  communion  called 
latitudinarian.  which  unites  all  parties  of  professed  Christians  in  the  fullest 
communion,  on  the  footing  only  of  those  general  principles  that  son?e  distin- 
guish by  the  name  of  essentials;  a  scheme  which  they  condemn  as  subversive  of 
the  design  of  this  and  every  other  stated  confession  of  faith,  and  as  having  a 
natural  tendency  to  promote  error,  and  extinguish  zeal  for  many  important 
truths  of  the  gospel,  and  consequently,  that  they  do  not  consider  themselves  as 
left  at  liberty,  by  this  part  of  the  confession,  to  hold  organical  communion  with 
any  denomination  of  Christians,  that  is  inconsistent  with  a  faithful  and  pointed 
testimony  for  any  revealed  truth  respecting  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and 
church  government:" 

"An  Act  concerning  psalmody,"  passed  1793.  "It  is  the  will  of  God.  that  the 
sacred  songs  of  Scripture  be  used  in  His  worship  to  the  end  of  the  world.  The 
substitution  of  devotional  songs,  composed  by  uninspired  men,  in  the  place  of 
these  sacred  songs,  is,  therefore,  a  corruption  of  the  worship  of  God." 

The  Convention  took  up  and  discussed  each  of  these  resolu- 
tions separately.  After  mature  del iheration  they  were  adopted. 
This  Convention  held  five  sessions  ;  passed  a  number  of  resolu- 
tions bearinoj  upon  the  general  interest  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  and  then  adjourned.  The  utmost  harmony 
prevailed  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  Convention. 
The  prospects  for  the  union  of  the  three  Synods  were  exceed- 
ingly encouraging. 


358  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  Pittsburcrh  Convention  had  no  power  to  consummate  the 
proposed  union.  It  was  simply  a  consultation  body.  Their 
proceedings  were,  however,  regularly  brought  before  each  of 
the  three  Synods  at  their  next  regular  meeting. 

To  all  human  appearances  there  was  nothing  Avhich  made  it 
incumbent  upon  either  of  the  Synods  to  oppose  the  union,  and 
many  things  which  urged  them  to  hasten  its  final  consumma- 
tion. They  had  all  adopted  literally  the  same  Confession  of 
Faith,  Form  of  Church  Government  and  Directory  for  Worship. 
They  had  adopted  it  with  the  same  explanations.  Their  op- 
position to  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Synod  was  common. 
In  the  recovery  of  the  library  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  they  had  and  felt  a  common  interest.  JSTo  one  of  the 
Synods,  it  would  seem,  had  a  desire  to  be  recognized  as  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  two. 
In  good  faith,  they  addressed  each  other  affectionately,  calling 
each  other  by  the  tender  name  of  sister.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  seemed  impossible  for  them  to  remain  in  their  dis- 
membered condition. 

In  November,  1827,  the  Synod  of  the  South  "  directed  Rev. 
John  T.  Pressley  to  inform  the  Synods  of  the  West  and  North 
that  this  Sj-nod  did,  at  its  present  meeting  consider  and  ap- 
prove of  all  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Convention  at  Pitts- 
burgh."' For  various  reasons,  both  the  other  Synods  saw  fit  to 
pursue  a  differnt  course. 

The  Synod  of  the  West  had  an  overture  on  slavery  laid  be- 
fore it.  This  was  undecided  ;  and  for  this  reason  and  this 
alone  the  Synod  of  the  West  was  unwilling,  at  that  time,  to 
unite  with  the  Synod  of  the  South.  With  the  Synod  of  the 
N^orth  the  Synod  of  the  West  Avas  unwilling  to  unite,  because 
of  the  latitudinarian  opinions  of  some  of  the  leading  members 
of  the  N'orthern  Synod  in  respect  to  psalmody  and  communion. 
The  Synod  of  the  JS'orth  was  unfavorable  to  the  union  because 
it  desired  to  be  let  alone,  and  permitted  to  manage  its  own  affairs 
in  its  own  way.  Thus  terminated  the  eiibrt  to  reorganize  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  In  this  dis- 
membered state  the  Synods  of  the  West  and  North  remained  until 
the  28th  of  May,  1856.  At  that  time  the  Synods  of  New 
York,  the  First  and  Second  of  the  West,  and  Illinois  united 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  359 

at  Allegheny,  Pennsylvania,  and  organized  the  General  Synod 
of  North  America..  The  Synod  of  the  South  still  maintains 
her 'independency. 

It  is  not  easy  to  say  with  absolute  certainty  why  the  basis  of 
union,  agreed  upon  by  the  Pittsburgh  Convention,  was  practi- 
cally rejected  by  the  Synods  of  I^ew  York  and  of  the  West. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Synod  of  the  South  was  in- 
tensely anxious  that  a  union  should  be  eflected.  The  Synod  of 
the  West  seems  to  have  lost  confidence  in  some  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod  of  jS"e\v  York,  or  of  the  I^orth,as  it  is  often 
called.  ]S"o  doubt  there  were  just  grounds  for  this,  but  it  was 
certainly  not  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  to  con- 
vert an  accidental  separation  into  a  schism.  Some  unions  maj' 
be  sinful,  but  all  schisms  are  sinful.  Tlie  subject  of  slavery 
stood  as  the  ostensible  barrier  in  the  way  of  union  between  the 
Synods  of  the  West  and  the  South.  Were  it  not  that  there 
are  some  very  curious  facts  connected  with  the  history  of  slave- 
r}-,  so  far  as  it  has  reference  to  the  Associate  Reformed  Church, 
the  whole  subject  would  be  passed  over  in  silence. 

Of  the  subject  in  its  national  results,  it  may  be  safely  said 
that  it  was  the  prime  and  only  cause  of  one  of  the  most  bloody 
civil  wars  the  Christian  world  ever  witnessed.  Of  the  subject 
of  slaverj'^  in  general,  however,  it  is  not  proposed  to  write.  Its 
history  cannot  yet  be  written.  The  very  mention  of  the  sub- 
ject arouses  feelings  of  bitter  animosity.  The  American  peo- 
ple are  not  yet  prepared  to  believe  the  truth.  A  man  places 
his  reputation  in  jeopardy  by  daring  either  to  write  or  speak 
of  it  in  a  calm,  unbiased  manner.  The  time  has  scarcely  ar- 
rived when  a  man  can  aftord  to  be  sober  in  his.  views  on  this 
subject.  Hy  the  clamor  of  the  multitude  he  is  pressed  to  be 
ultra  on  one  side  or  the  other. 

Discarding  slavery  in  its  national  aspect,  it  is  proposed  to 
state  briefly  and  dispassionately  the  origin  and  result  of  the 
slaver}^  controversy  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  'No- 
doubt  the  mass  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  both  North 
and  South,  will  stand  amazed  when  it  is  declared  that  the 
sentiment  of  the  Associate  Eeformecl  people,  both  ministers 
and  laymen,  in  the  South,  was  decidedly  anti-slavery  from  its 
origin  down  to  about  the  year  1830.  It  is  a  fact  that  a  very  . 
large  number  of  the  Associate  Reformed  people  in  the  South 


360  HISTORY    OF    THE 

emigrated  to  the  north-west  for  no  other  reason  than  their  op- 
position to  slavery.  This  is  true  of  other  Christian  denomina- 
tions^ especially  of  the  Covenanters  and  Associate  Preslryte- 
rians.  This  emigration  movement  began  about  the  close  of  the 
last  century  and  continued  for  about  thirty  years. 

The  first  time  that  the  subject  of  slavery  was  formally'  intro- 
duced into  any  of  the  courts  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
was  in  the  s]#ring  of  1826.  At  that  time  an  overture  was  sent 
up  to  the  Synod  of  the  West  by  the  congregation  of  Hopewell, 
Preble  count}',  Ohio.  The  curious  fact  connected  with  this 
overture  was  tliat  the  congregation  from  which  it  came  was  of 
Southern  origin.  Its  pastor,  the  Rev.  Alexander  Porter,  was 
a  native  of  Abbeville  county.  South  Carolina,  and  all,  or  near- 
ly all,  the  members  of  the  congregation  were  emigrants  from 
the  counties  of  Chester,  Fairfield  and  Abbeville,  S.  C.  The 
church  in  which  they  worshipped  they  named  Hopewell,  in 
honor  of  Hopewell,  in  Chester  county,  South  Carolina.  The 
conofregation  was  simply  a  colony  of  Associate  Reformed  peo- 
ple which  had  gone,  some  before  their  pastor,  some  about  the 
same  time,  and  some  after  him,  and  settled  in  Ohio.  The  set- 
tlement was  begun  about  1800,  by  some  families  from  Hope- 
well, Chester  county,  S.  C.  These  were,  in  subsequent  years, 
joined  by  other  families  from  the  same  region.  In  1814,  the 
Rev.  Alexander  Porter,  the  second  pastor  of  Cedar  Spring  and 
Long  Cane,  became  their  pastor.  These  families  emigrated 
from  South  Carolina  on  account  of  their  opposition  to  slavery, 
and  they  were  the  first  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  to 
make  an  eftbrt  for  the  overthrow  of  the  institution. 

This  calls  up  another  fact  that  has  long  since  been  practical- 
ly ignored.  It  is  this  :  Anti-slavery  sentiments  first  existed  in 
the  slave-holding  States,  and  were  introduced  into,  what  are 
known  as  free  States,  b}'  Southern  men.  In  the  three  presby- 
teries constituting,  in  1826,  the  Synod  of  the  West,  only  the 
First  Presbytery  of  Ohio  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  over- 
ture sent  up  by  Hopewell  congregation.  In  this  presby- 
tery there  Avere,'  at  the  time  this  overture  was  under  considera- 
tion, six  pastoral  charges.  Three  of  the  pastors,  Alexander 
Porter,  Samuel  P.  Magaw  and  David  McDill,  were  born  in 
South  Carolina;  another,  Joseph  Claybaugh,  was  born  in  Mary- 
land.    John  Steele,  one  of  the  remaining  pastors,  had  been  a 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  361 

pastor  in  Kentucky.  In  addition  to  this,  Samuel  C.  Baldridge, 
one  of  its  three  students,  wa's  born  in  Rockbridge  county,  Vir- 
ginia. 

In  1826,  the  number  of  communicants  in  connection  with 
the  congregations  under  the  supervision  of  the  First  Presb\'- 
ter}'  of  Ohio  was  about  two  thousand.  Of  this  number,  full}^ 
three-fourths  were  born  in  the  South,  or  were  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  parents  who  were  born  there.  It  was  by  these 
that  the  slavery  question  was  first  agitated  in  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  and  they  gave  the  anti-slavery  sentiment 
its  first  impulse  in  the  denomination  to  which  they  belonged. 
It  was  by  these  mainly  that  the  reorganizing  of  the  General 
Synod  was  opposed  in  the  Synod  of  the  Vv^est. 

In  connection  with  this  general  subject  it  may  be  stated  that 
while  tlie  Synod  of  the  West  was  engaged  in  discussing  the 
overture  which  was  designed  to  make  slavery  a  term  of  com- 
munion, or  which  had  for  its  object  the  excluding  slavery 
from  the  church,  a  Cjuestion  very  similar  in  its  general  aspect 
was  engaging  the  attention  of  the  Synod  of  the  South,  About 
the  year  1828,  some  politicians  in  South  Carolina  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  slavery  could  be  perpetuated  only  by  keeping 
the  slaves  in  ignorance.  To  eftect  this,  it  was  purposed  to  peti- 
tion the  Legislature  of  the  State  to  pass  a  law  prohibiting  the 
instruction  of  slaves.  To  prevent  the  enactment  of  such  a  law, 
the  following,  submitted  b}'  Rev.  John  T.  Pressle}'  and  Rev. 
John  Hemphill,  was  unanimouslj'  adopted  by  the  Synod  in 
1828,  viz. : 

Whebeas.  It  is  understood  that  petitions  will  be  presented  to  the  honorable 
Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  at  its  approaching  meeting,  praying  the  enact- 
ment of  a  law  to  prohibit  the  instruction  of  slaves  to  read;  therefore. 

Resolved  1.  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Synod,  such  a  law  would  be  a  seri- 
ous infringement  of  their  rights  of  conscience. 

2.  That  the  members  of  this  Synod  use  active  exertions  to  forward  memorials 
to  the  honorable  Legislature,  remonstrating  respectful!}',  yet  firmly,  against  the 
passage  of  any  such  law. 

It  is'  a  fact  which  none  dare  deny,  that  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  a  large  number  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  be- 
came wildly  fanatical.  In  the  Xorth  many  proclaimed  that  it 
was  "  the  sum  of  all  villainies."  In  the  South  many  plunged 
recklessly  into  the  opposite  extreme.  The  position  taken  b}' 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  both  in  the  Xorth  and  South, 


362  HISTORY    OF    THE 

was  certainly  not  ultra.  The  deliverances  of  the  Synods  of 
the  North  and  "West  on  slavery  were  extremely  mild  when 
compared  with  the  deliverances  of  some  other  Christian  de- 
nominations on  the  same  subject.  The  Synod  of  the  South 
never,  at  any  time,  made  a  deliverance  on  the  subject ;  and  al- 
though the  supposed  diversity  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  was  the  main  reason  why  the  effort  in  1826  to  re- 
organize the  General  Synod  failed,  the  Synod  of  the  South  still 
continued  to  cherish  a  tender  regard  for  the  Synod  of  the  AVest. 
For  ten  years  the  Synod  of  the  South  continued  to  indulge  the 
hope  that  the  fragments  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
would  again  be- united.  Collections  for  foreign  missions  were 
regularly  made  in  the  congregations  of  the  Southern  Synod, 
and  the  money  raised  was  sent,  in  some  instances,  to  the  Sj'uod 
of  New  York,  to  be  used  by  them.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
the  S^mod  of  the  South  took  offense  at  the  Synod  of  the  West 
on  account  of  the  position  of  that  Synod  on  the  subject  of 
slaver}'.  On  the  contrary,  the  Synod  of  the  South  continued 
to  cherish  for  the  other  two  Synods  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  and  especially  for  the  Synod  of  the  West,  a  tender  re- 
gard, and  no  alienation  of  feelins;  existed  as  late  as  1836.  After 
that  time  friendly  intercourse  began  to  be  more  formal  and  less 
frequent,  and  soon  ceased  altogether. 

It  is  due  to  the  Synod  of  the  West  to  say  that  it  reciprocated 
the  fraternal  love  cherished  by  the  Synod  of  the  South,  and 
deferred  the  proposed  union,  fearing  its  deliverances  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  would  involve  the  Synod  of  the  South  in  a 
difficulty  with  the  civil  authorities.  This  difficulty  the  Synod 
of  the  South  seems  to  have  ignored  entirely,  and  was  anxious 
for  the  union. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  363 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

THE  PROSPECTS  BRIGHTEN  ABOUT  1834— Nullification  and  Protective 
Tariff  Disturbance — South  Carolina  Fearfully  Disturbed — Immorality  and 
Vice  Increase — Mr.  Clay's  '"Compromise"  of  1833 — Peace  and  Quiet  Re- 
stored— Number  of  Ministers  in  the  Synod  in  1834 — Their  Names — All  Dead 
but  Dr.  Boyce — Change  in  Feeling  on  Account  of  Slavery — Slavery  Dragged 
into  Everything — To  be  Ultra  was  an  Evidence  of  Loyalty — Friendly  Inter- 
course Between  the  North  and  South  Cease — Resolution  of  the  Synod  of  the 
South  in  1834— Its  Object— Resolution  of  1835— Rev.  Samuel  W.  McCracken 
Professor  of  Divinity  for  the  Synod  of  the  South-.-Politicians  Prejudiced 
Against  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South — Ultra  Notions  of 
Some — Attempt  to  Found  a  Manual  Labor  School — Failed — Agents  Ap- 
poinled  to  Collect  Money,  to  be  Called  an  Educational  Fund^ — Resolutions 
Respecting  the  Establishing  of  a  Seminary  at  Due  West — Report  of  the 
Agents — Seminary  Opened  February,  1836 — Called  Clark  and  Erskine  Sem- 
inary— Theological  Seminary — Professor  Elected — Rev.  E.  E.  Pressley  Elect- 
ed in  1837 — Erskine  College  Founded. 

About  the  year  1834  the  prospects  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
S3'nod  of  the  South  began  to  brighten.  For  a  period  of  thirty 
3"ears  it  had  made  but  little  progress.  A  number  of  difficul- 
ties had  to  be  encountered,  overcome  or  outlived.  Daring  the 
■existence  of  the  General  Sj-nod  the  energies  of  the  Synod  of 
the  South  were  directed,  in  part,  to  the  refutation  of  errors, 
and  thereby  partially  paralyzed,  so  far  as  the  spread  of  the 
gospel  Avas  concerned.  In  addition  to  the  time  wasted  in 
efforts  to  effect  a  union  with  the  Synods  of  the  West  and 
North,  the  political  condition  of  the  country  was  unfavorable 
to  the  advancement  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  In  South 
Carolina  the  Nullification  controversy  disturbed  everything  for 
a  number  of  years.  ISTeighborhoods  became  divided,  congrega- 
tions were  rent,  and,  in  some  cases,  father  and  sons  espoused 
opposite  parties.  This  difficulty  had  its  origin  in  the  passage 
of  an  act  by  the  American  Congress,  in  1828,  levying  what 
was  called  a  '■''Protective  Tariff.'"  In  the  session  of  1831-2, 
Congress  passed  another  act  similar  in  its  nature.  This  in- 
flamed the  agricultural  sections  of  the  country  against  the 
manufacturins:  districts.     In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 


364  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Colonel  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  of  South  Carolina,  appeared  as  the 
champion  of  States'  rights,  and  Daniel  "Webster,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, as  the  advocate  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  In  November,  1832,  a  Convention  of 
delegates,  called  by  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  assem- 
bled at  Columbia  and  passed  the  Nullification  Ordinance.  The 
people  of  the  State  became  divided,  in  what  proportion  it  mat- 
ters not,  so  far  as  our  present  purpose  is  concerned.  One  party 
took,  or  was  given,  the  name  of  Nidlifiers,  aud  the  other  was 
called  Union  men.  From  the  Atlantic  ocean  on  the  east,  to 
the  Savannah  river  on  the  west,  and  from  the  islands  on  the 
south  to  the  mountain  districts  on  the  north,  there  was  nothing 
but  bitter  strife.  The  country  was  flooded  with  pamphlets  ; 
some  advocating  IXuUification  and  others  advocatins;  Union, 
Everything  else  was  partially  forgotten.  Congregations  mot 
to  worship  God,  and  spent  the  intervals  between  the  services  in 
bitter  disputes  which  sometimes  terminated  in  iist  tights. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  things  in  South  Carolina  from 
1828  to  1833.  The  Church  languished,  and  immorality  and 
vice  stalked  over  the  land,  joyful  on  account  of  their  present 
achievements  and  jubilant  in  view  of  their  prospective  tri- 
umphs. 

On  the  1st  of  March,  1833,  the  "Compromise  Tariff"  bill, 
introduced  by  Mr.  Clay,  was  passed  into  a  law  by  Congress. 
In  consequence  of  this  the  Convention  of  South  Carolina  again 
assembled  and  repealed  the  Ordinance  of  jSTullification.  Peace 
was  again,  at  least  partially,  restored  to  the  State.  As  far  as 
could  be,-the  line, which  had  divided  jSTulliliers  and  Union  men 
Avas  wiped  out,  and  an  honest  effort  was  made  to  forget  the 
past  and  live  in  peace  during  the  future. 

"When  the  Synod  of  the  Carolinas  became  independent,  there 
were  in  connection  with  it  eleven  ministers;  in  1834  there 
were  only  fourteen.  During  that  period  of  twelve  years  James 
Rogers,  William  Blackstock,  John  Hemphill,  Robert  Irwin 
and  Charles  Strong  had  died  ;  John  T.  Pressley  had  gone  tO' 
Allegheny,  and  Samuel  P.  Pressley  had  gone  to  Franklin  Col- 
lege, Georgia,  In  1833,  Rev,  Thomas  Kitchin,  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas,  and  a  number  of  congregations 
under  the  care  of  that  presbytery,  connected  with  the  First 
Associate  Reformed  Presbytery. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  365 

The  members  of  the  Synod,  in  1834,  were  Isaac  Grier, 
Thomas  Kitchin,  E.  Harris,  Joseph  Lowrj',  James  Lowry, 
Henry  Bryson,  John  Renwick,  E.  E.  Pressley,  James  P. 
Pressley,  James  Boyce,  Warren  Flenniken,  Robert  M.  Gal- 
loway, I.  G.  "Whitherspoon,  and  Jonathan  Galloway,  proba- 
tioner. Of  these  fourteen,  Isaac  Grier  was  the  only  one  who 
was  present  in  1803,  when  the  Sjaiod  was  organized,  and  the 
Rev.  Dr.  James  Bo3'ce  is  the  only  one  that  is  now  alive  of  the 
whole  number.     TJie  rest  have  all  fallen  asleep. 

About  the  year  1834  that  friendly  feeling  which  had  hereto* 
fore  existed  between  the  three  Synods  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  underwent  a  marked  change.  This  was  pro- 
duced by  a  number  of  causes  ;  the  principal  one,  however,  was 
the  opposite  views  which  now  began  to  be  held  with  regard  to 
the  institution  of  slavery.  Sectional  feelings  had  been  aroused, 
and  the  epithets  Xorth  and  South  were  applied  as  terms  of  re- 
proach. Societies  were  organized  in  the  Xorth  for  the  purpose 
of  emancipating  the  slaves  of  the  South.  By  these  societies 
incendiary  tracts  were  circulated  among  the  slaves  of  the 
South. 

The  country  soon  became  divided.  The  subject  of  slavery' 
was  dragged  into  everything.  It  was  discussed  around  the 
Hreside,  on  the  public  highway,  in  the  harvest-field,  in  legisla- 
tive halls  and  often  in  the  pulpit.  The  children  of  the  two 
great  sections  were  educated  to  cherish  for  each  other  deadly 
hatred.  Every  new  book  had  something  in  it  either  for  or 
against  slavery.  To  abuse  the  South  was  a  large  part  of  the 
religion  of  many  at  the  North,  and  an  unmistakable  evidence 
of  their  loyalty  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
sons  and  daughters  of  those  who  had  exterminated  the  Algon- 
quins,  Hurons  and  Dakotas,  melted  into  tears  at  the  thoughts 
of  the  poor  African,  who  had  been  stolen  from  his  native  land, 
brought  to  the  sunny  South  and  forced  to  cultivate  the  soil  for 
a  master.  In  the  South  every  one  learned  to  abuse  the  Xorth. 
This  was  the  evidence  of  patriotism.  IN'o  southern  man,  it  was 
thought,  could  love  his  country  without  hating  the  ISTorth, 
Friendl}'  intercourse  between  the  two  sections  of  the  country 
soon  ceased  to  exist.  It  was  more  than  a  northern  man's  rep- 
utation was  worth  to  be  friendly  towards  the  South,  and  the 
southern  man  who  was  not  violently  opposed  to  the  Xorth  and 


366  HISTORY    OF    THE 

northern  sentinicnts  respecting  slavery  made  himself  an  object 
of  scorn  and  contempt  to  all  his  neighbors  and  even  to  his  own 
blood  kin.  As  a  result  of  this  alienation  of  sentiment  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Synod  of  the  South,  in  1834,  deliberately  and 
unanimously  declared  by  j-esolution  ''that  in  tbeir  opinion  it 
is  prejudicial  to  the  Southern  Church  to  send  our  joung  men 
to  the  Is^orth  or  West,  either  to  college  or  to  a  theological 
seminary." 

In  this  resolution  not  one  Avord  is  said  either  for  or  against 
slavery.  All  that  is  said,  is  that  it  was  not  for  the  interest  of 
the  Synod  that  their  young  men  go  to  the  Xorth  to  be  educat- 
ed. The  church,  as  a  church,  did  not  introduce  pure!}'  politi- 
cal questions  into  its  deliberations.  So  difierent,  however, 
were  the  political  opinions  of  the  North  and  West  from  those 
of  the  South,  and  so  violent  were  the  different  sections  of  coun- 
try in  promulgating  their  opinions,  that  the  Synod  wisely  re- 
garded the  practice  of  sending  young  men  to  the  Xortli  or 
West  to  be  educated  as  exposing  the  church  in  the  South  to 
unnecessary  reproach  by  ultra  politicians. 

The  affection  of  the  Synod  of  the  South  for  the  Synods  of 
the  North  and  West,  although  it  may  not  have  been  as  warm 
as  it  once  was,  had  not  cooled  down  into  indifference.  An 
evidence  of  this  is  found  in  the  fact  that  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Synod  at  Cedar  Spring,  in  1835,  '•  The  propriety  of  a  reorgan- 
ization of  General  Syiiod  was  spoken  of,  and  Synod  wire  ex- 
horted to  keep  this  object  in  view,  so  soon  as  the  providence  of 
God  seems  to  point  the  way."  Another  evidence  that  the 
Synod  of  the  South  cherished  no  hatred  toward  the  Synods  of 
the  North  and  West,  is  the  fact  that  in  1836  Rev  Samuel  W. 
McCracken,  a  member  of  the  First  Presbytery  of  Ohio,  "  was 
unanimously  chosen  to  be  Professor  of  Divinity  for  the  Synod 
of  the  South."  In  fact  the  election  of  ]Mr.  McCracken  "to  be 
Professor  of  'Theology  in  the  Southern  Synod,"  is  a  very  re- 
markable thing  when  the  circumstances  are  considered.  The 
presbytery  to  which,  he  belonged  w^as  the  only  presbytery 
which,  either  in  the  Synod  of  the  North  or  West,  was  decided 
]y  Opposed  to  slavery.  It  would  be  but  fair  to  conclude  that 
Mr.  McCracken  was  opposed  to  slavery  since  he  was  pastor  of 
Hopewell  congregation,  in  Preble  county,  Ohio.  This  congre- 
gation, it  will  be  remembered,  first  introduced  the  subject  of 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  3<)T 

slavery  into  the  Associate  Eeformed  Church,  and  was  always 
decided  in  its  opposition  to  the  institution.  It  is  scarcely  pos- 
sible, certainl}'  not  probable,  that  a  congregation  so  decided  in 
its  convictions  on  the  subject  of  slavery  would  have  tolerated 
a  pastor  whose  opinions  were  not  eqtially  as  decided. 

Other  facts  might  be  brought  forward  to  show  that  the 
Synod  of  the  South,  while  it  was  firm  and  unwavering  in  its 
attachment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  and  was  ready,  at  all  times,  to  oppose  any  and  all  in- 
novations, either  in  doctrine  or  practice,  never  went  out  of  the 
■^vay  to  discuss  political  questions  in  ecclesiastical  courts. 

It  is  probable  that  the  efl:orts'  to  reorganize  the  General 
Synod,  limited  and  unsuccessful  as  these  eflbrts  were,  pre- 
judiced some  Southern  politicians  against  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  and,  to  some  extent,  retarded  its  growth.  The 
minds  of  not  a  few  in  the  South,  as  well  as  in  the  Xorth, 
had  become  morbid.  They  were  ready  to  drive  a  man  from 
the  country  if  he  said,  as  the  Associate  Eeformed  Synod  said 
in  1828,  "  That  it  is  the  duty  of  masters  to  instruct  their 
servants  to  read  the  -word  of  God";  or,  as  they  said  in  1839, 
■'  That  it  is  the  duty  of  church  sessions'  to  require  of  Christian 
masters  and  heads  of  families,  belonging  to  their  communion, 
to  have  their  servants,  who  are  'bought  with  their  money  or 
born  in  their  house,'  baptized,  as  well  as  their  children." 

In  1834  it  became  manifest  that  the  existence  of  the  S3mod 
of  the  South  depended,  under  God,  in  ceasing  to  depend  upon 
other  denominations  for  educational  advantages.  For  a  num- 
ber of  years  prior  to  this  the  providences  of  God  had  been 
pointing  in  that  direction.  On  the  10th  of  Xovem.ber,  1831, 
the  Synod  met  at  Due  "West  Corner,  Abbeville  District  (now 
county).  South  Carolina.  On- the  next  day  (the  11th),  the  fol- 
lowing resolutions  were  adopted,  viz  : 

1st.  Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  to  make  an  effort  to  establish,  in  the 
bounds  of  tliis  Synod,  one  or  more  schools  or  academies,  on  "  the  manual  labor 
system." 

2d.  Resolved,  That  between  this  time  and  the  next  meeting  of  the  Synod  the 
members  of  Synod  make  inquiries  in  their  respective  congregations,  as  to  the 
amount  of  funds  which  could  be  raised,  or  lands  or  stock  which  would  or 
might  be  furnished,  by  any  congregation  or  congregations  in  the  bounds  of  this 
Synod. 


368  HISTORY    OF    THE 

3d.  Resolved,  That  the  Clerk  of  this  Synod  correspond  with  the  princijials  of 
some  approved  manual  labor  schools  in  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaihing  the  most  correct  knowledge  on  the  best  mode  of  conducting  a  manual 
labor  school. 

4th.  Resolved,  That  the  teachers  of  said  schools  shall  be  members  of  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church. 

5th.  Resolved,  That  said  academies  shall  be  so  located  that  the  students  may 
conveniently  attend  some  Associate  Reformed  Church. 

The  adoption  of  the  above  resohitions  marks  a  new  and  im- 
portant era  in  the  history  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of 
the  South.  Important  results  became  visible  at  once.  The 
energies  of  the  denomination  were  immediatel}-  concentrated. 
The  object  proposed  to  be  accomplished  was  one  which  all  re- 
garded worthy  of  their  efforts. 

Ill  1835  the  Synod  met  at  Cedar  Spring,  in  Abbeville  count}', 
South  Carolina.  The  subject  of  education  came  up  for  con- 
sideration at  an  early  hour  on  the  first  day.  "  Ministers  were 
called  on  to  see  if  they  had  laid  the  manual  labor  plan  of  edu- 
cation before  their  people."  The  reports  were  not  favorable. 
The  people  did  not  favor  the  manual  labor  plan.  Some  con- 
gregations would  give  nothing  for  its  support,  others  would 
support  it  on  certain  conditions.  The  Synod  came  to  the  con- 
elusion  that  the  manual  labor  plan  was  impracticable,  and  at 
once  abandoned  it. 

The  thing  proposed  to  be  accomplished  was  not  however 
abandoned.  A  committee  on  education  was  appointed.  This 
x^ommittee,  on  the  next  day,  presented  a  report,  which  was 
amended  and  adopted,  as  follows,  viz.: 

1st.  Resolved,  That  Synod  embark  immediatelj'  in  raising  a  fund,  which  shall 
be  called  the  Synod's  Educational  Fund.  The  interest  of  which  fund  shall  be 
annually  appropriated  to  aid  young  men  in  preparing  for  the  ministry,  and  in 
procuring  a  necessary  theological  library  for  the  beneSt  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church. 

2d.  Resolved,  That  W.  Flennikin  be  an  agent  in  the  First  Presbytery,  and  E. 
E.  Pressley  in  the  Second  Presbytery,  to  visit  all  the  churches  in  the  bounds,  and 
such  other  places  as  their  prudence  may  direct,  to  solicit  funds;  and,  also,  that 
Messrs.  T.  Turner,  Jno.  Wilson  and  James  Lowry,  be  additional  agents  in  the 
vacancies  and  remote  jiarts  of  the  church. 

3d.  Resolved,  That  the  Synod  hereby  appoint  James  Lowry,  in  the  First  Pres- 
bytery, and  James  Lindsay,  in  the  Second  Presbytery,  treasurers,  to  lend  out 
such  funds  as  the  Synod  may  commit  to  their  hands,  and  account  for  the  same, 
giving  to  the  Sj'nod  proper  bond  and  security,  for  both  principal  and  interest; 
and  these  treasurers  shall  report  at  e^ery  annual  meeting  of  the  Synod,  and  such 
treasurers  shall  retain  not  exceeding  two  per  centum  annually  for  their  trouble 
in  receiving  and  paying  such  moneys. 


,  ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  369 

4th.  Resolved,  That  every  student  so  educated  shall  refund  to  the  Synod  the 
money  advanced  by  Synod,  in  the  space  of  five  years  after  he  is  licensed,  pro- 
vided he  join  another  denomination  of  Christians. 

5th.  Besolved.  That  in  a  case  when  a  student  may  be  assisted  with  a  view  to 
the  ministry,  yet  at  some  period  of  his  course  he  declines  studying  divinity, 
such  student  shall  refund  the  money  advanced  by  the  Synod  in  three  years  from 
the  time  at  which  he  so  declines. 

6th.  Besolved,  That  we  establish  a  school  at  Due  AVest  Corner,  Abbeville  Dis- 
trict, S.  C,  and  elect  John  S.  Pressley,  as  our  teacher.  In  this  school  shall  be 
faithfully  taught  all  those  branches  necessary  to  an  entrance  into  the  junior 
class  in  any  respectable  college.  The  Synod  bind  themselves  to  said  John  S. 
Pressley,  in  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars,  for  the  space  of  ten  months.  The 
school  shall  be  opened  for  any  student  the  first  year,  and  afterwards  to  be  regu- 
lated by  the  wisdom  of  the  Svnod. 

7th.  Resolved,  That  although  we  have  a  school,  to  which  we  expect,  when  at 
all  convenient,  our  students  will  go,  still  we  would  give  aid  to  any  whose  circum- 
stances might  seem  to  warrant  them  in  going  to  another  school. 

8th.  Resolved,  That  Rev.  E.  E.  Pressley,  A.  C.  Hawthorn,  Jas.  Lindsay.  Jas.  ■ 
Fair  and  Abraham  Haddon,  be  a  Board  of  Directors  of  said  school,  whose  duties 
shall  be  to  secure  the  Teacher  elect,  examine  beneficiaries,  attend  to  the  moral 
and  religious  character  of  the  institution,  discharge  the  debts  of  the  students 
which  were  contracted  by  their  order,  and  all  other  duties  connected  with  such 
direction,  and  report  their  doings  annually  to  the  Synod. 

9th.  Resolved,  That  said  school  shall  commence  as  soon  as  the  first  of  Feb- 
ruary. 

10th.  Resolved,  That  agents,  in  collecting  funds,  exercise  discretionary  power 
as  to  the  number  of  installments — but  shall  be  limited  to  five  years ;  and  the  first 
payment  shall  be  considered  due  on  the  first  of  January,  1836. 

11th.  Resolved,  That  the  Synod  api^ly  to  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina  to 
be  incorporated. 

12th.  Resolved,  That  J.  Dulin  and  J.  Foster,  Esqs.,  be  a  committee  on  behalf 
of  this  Synod  to  apply  to  said  Legislature,  as  above  directed. 

13th.  Resolved,  That  the  Synod  at  its  next  regular  meeting  reconsider  ali 
their  proceedings  relative  to  its  Educational  Fund,  so  that  the  dates  of  these  in- 
struments may  be  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  Corporation  Act. 

Resolved,  That  the  Clerk  of  this  Synod  report,  at  its  next  meeting,  a  catalogue 
of  a  theological  library;  which  library  shall  not  cost  more  than  five  hundred 
dollars. 

Resolved,  That  the  election  of  professor  of  divinity  shall  be  postponed  till 
next  meeting  of  the  Synod;  and  that  in  the  meantime,  students  of  divinity  be 
under  the  direction  of  their  respective  presbyteries. 

The  above  resolutions  are  important  in  themselves,  and  be- 
sides they  indicate  very  clearly  a  vigorous  state  of  life  and 
activity  which  heretofore  had  not  existed  in  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  of  the  South.  There  was  a  crudit}'  in  the  man- 
ual labor  plan  of  education,  which  the  practical  sense  of  the 
people  soon  discovered.  The  plan  now  adopted  met  the  hearty 
approbation  of  the  Associate  Reformed  people.  At  the  next 
25 


370  HISTORY    OF    THE 

meeting  of  the  Synod,  the  agents  of  the  Synod's  Educational 
Fund  reported  that  they  had  "  received  in  moneys  and  subscrip- 
tions seven  thousand  and  thirty-five  doHars,"  Nearly  all  this 
amount  was  raised  in  the  settled  charges — -the  vacancies  con- 
tributing but  little. 

At  this  same  meeting  Abraham  Iladdon,  chairman  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  of  Education,  reported  that  they  "  proceeded 
to  erect  a  building  to  be  occupied  as  an  academy."  The  build- 
ing, he  states,  "  was  constructed  on  the  most  approved  and 
most  convenient  plan."  It  was  furnished  with  the  necessary 
furniture,  such  as  desks  and  globes.  On  the  first  Monday  of 
February,  1836,  the  exercises  of  the  academy  commenced. 
During  the  year  there  were  about  twenty  classical  students  in 
attendance.     The  whole  number  of  students  is  not  stated. 

The  primary  design  contemplated  by  the  Synod  was  to  es- 
tablish a  first  class  high  school,  in  which  young  men  having 
the  gospel  ministry'  in  view  might  be  prepared  for  tlie  junior 
class  in  any  respectable  college.  The  ultimate  end  was  the 
founding  of  a  college. 

The  name  given  the  institution  at  first  was  simply  "  The 
Academy  at  Due  West  Corner."  In  the  act  of  incorporation 
the  name  "  Clark  and  Erskine  Seminary"  was  given  it. 

The  theological  seminar}'  is  older  than  the  literary  institution. 
The  latter  was  designed  to  be  the  hand-maid  of  the  former. 
In  this  the  Synod  of  the  South  followed  the  example  of  the 
ifirst  seceders.  The}^,  immediately,  on  being  thrust  out  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  erected  a  "Divinity  Hall"  and  in  connec- 
tion with  it  established  a  ''  school  of  philosophy,"  Ten  3'ears 
before  the  founing  of  the  academy  at  Due  West  the  Synod  de- 
termined "  to  establish  a  school  of  tlieology  Avitlun  their 
bounds."  Two  professors,  Rev.  John  Hemphill  and  Rev.  John 
T.  Pressley,  were  elected.  In  the  providence  of  God  this  ar- 
rangement was  of  short  duration. 

The  necessity  of  a  theological  seminary  was  deeply  felt,  and 
at  the  same  time  that  the  Literary  Academy  vras  established  at 
Due  West  it  was  determined  to  establish  a  theological  seminary- 
at  the  same  place.  In  1836  "  Rev.  Samuel  W.  McCracken,  A. 
M.,  Professor  of  Ancient  Languages  in  Miami  University,  Ox- 
ford, Ohio,  was  unanimously  chosen  to  be  Professor  of  Divinity 
for  the  Synod  of  the  South."     The  salary  of  the  theological 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY,  371 

professor  was  fixed  at  eight  hundred  dollars.  Mr.  McCracken, 
however,  did  not  accept.  His  reason  for  declining  was,  briefly, 
"  the  importance  to  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  of  his 
present  situation  in  the  Miami  University. 

To  meet  the  present  emergency,  Rev.  E.  E.  Pressley  was,  in 
1837,  elected  Professor  of  Theology  for  one  year,  with  a  salary 
of  five  hundred  dollars.  In  1838,  the  Synod  "  solemnly  resolved 
to  go  into  an  election  for  a  permanent  professor  of  theology." 
The  result  was  that  Rev.  E.  E.  Pressley  was  chosen.  ISTo  doubt 
he  would  have  been  chosen  in  1837,  had  not  Mr.  McCracken 
intimated  that,  in  the  event,  "  a  suitable  person  could  be  found 
to  fill  his  place  at  Oxford,"  he  would  accept  the  position  to 
which  he  was  elected  by  the  Synod  of  the  South. 

In  1839,  at  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  at  Due  West  Corner, 
Mr.  John  S.  Pressley  tendered  his  resignation  as  principal  of 
the  literary  department  of  Clark  and  Erskine  Seminary.  The 
resignation  was  accepted  and  a  vote  of  thanks  tendered  to  Mr. 
Pressley  for  the  ability  and  zeal  with  which  he  had  served  the 
Synod. 

The  growth  of  the  institution  over  which  Mr.  Pressley  pre- 
sided, was,  from  the  beginning,  rapid.  In  1839,  a  select  com- 
mittee, appointed  by  the  Synod  to  take  into  consideration  the 
interests  of  the  institution,  recommended  the  extending  of  the 
course  of  studies.  The  report  was  adopted  and  a  committee 
appointed  to  nominate  a  president  and  two  professors. 

Rev.  E.  E.  Pressley  was  elected  President  and  Professor  of 
Moral  Science;  Keil  M.  Gordon,  Professor  of  Languages,  pro 
tem.,  and  Jolm  N.  Young,  Professor  of  Mathematics  and 
Xatural  Philosophy,  pro  tern..  In  1840,  John  N.  Young  was 
elected  permanent  Professor  of  Mathematics  and  Xatural 
Philosoph}-,  and  Rev.  James  P.  Pressley,  permanent  Professor 
of  Languages,  and  that  he  "■  take  part  in  the  theological  de- 
j^^tartment." 

At  the  same  meeting  of  Synod,  the  board  of  directors  of 
Clark  and  Erskine  Seminary  called  the  attention  of  Synod  to 
the  pressing  need  of  a  suitable  building  in  which  tcf  conduct 
the  exercises  of  the  institution.  It  had  grown  from  a  small 
beginning  until  now  it  assumed  all  the  essential  features  of  a 
literary  college,  in  connection  with  a  theological  seminary. 


372  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Tlie  following  recommendation  was  presented  and  adopted, 

viz. : 

■  ••  That  each  minister  be  directed  to  act  as  agent  in  his  own  congregation  and 
neighborhood,  to  collect  money  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  the  college  at 
Due  West  Corner,  and  that  they  report  to  the  board  of  directors,  as  soon  as  con- 
venient, as  to  what  amount  can  be  raised,  and  if  the  amount  be  sufficient  to 
■warrant  the  board  to  commence  a  college  edifice,  costing  not  more  than  five 
thousand  dollars,  that  they  be  instructed  to  commence  it  immediately  on  some 
cheap  and  suitable  site  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  present  location." 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  at  o^ewhope,  in  Fairfield  coun- 
ty, South  Carolina,  in  October,  in  1843,  the  board  of  directors 
reported  as  follows,  viz. : 

"  The  college  building  is  now  complete,  and  the  entire  cost  thereof  has  been 
met  by  the  treasurer  of  the  building  committee  and  of  the  literary  and  theo- 
logical funds." 

The  entire  cost  was  seven  thousand  and  ninet}'  dollars.  The 
name  Clark  and  Erskine  Seminary  was  exchanged  for  Erskine 
College.  In  1842  the  first  class  graduated.  The  institution 
continued  to  grow  in  public  favor,  and,  at  the  breaking  out  of 
the  civil  war,  was  the  most  flourishing  denoroinational  college 
in  the  South. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  373 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

EFFECT  OF  ERSKINE  COLLEGE  ON  THE  SYNOD  OF  THE  SOUTH— A 
Great  Undertaking  Nobly  Executed — Other  Schools  Spring  up  and  Become 
Supporters  of  the  College — Christian  Magazine  of  the  South  Established — 
First  Number  Published  January,  1843  —  Continued  to  Flourish  for  Nine 
Years — Erskine  Miscellany  Begun  —  Strength  of  the  Synod  in  1842 — Dr. 
Isaac  Grier  died  1843 — His  Connection  with  the  Synod — Missions  Begun — 
Associate  Church  a  Missionary  Church — Labors  of  the  Early  Fathers — Of 
Those  who  Succeeded  Them — Missionary  Labors  of  the  Fathers  Confined  to 
the  Home  Field— The  Extent  of  this  Field— Resolution  of  1817— Mission- 
aries Sent  West  —  Length  of  their  Journeys — Funds  Raised— ^Missionaries 
Sent  West  Annuallj' — Localities  Visited — Young  Men  First  Sent  on  a  Tour 
West — Churches  in  the  AVest  Founded — Missions  still  Continued — Foreign 
Missions — Resolution  of  1837 — Synod  Assists  the  Synod  of  the  North  and 
the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Synod  in  Foreign  Missions — Board  of  Foreign 
Missions — Rev.  T.  Turner's  Resolution  of  1843 — African  Mission  Set  on 
Foot — Failed  Through  Mismanagement. 

The  founding  of  Erskine  College  infused  a  fepirit  of  enter- 
prise into  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South.  It 
was  a  grand  undertaking,  and  nobly  was  it  accomplished. 
Too  much  praise  cannot  be  bestowed  upon  the  venerable 
fathers  who  conceived  the  idea,  nor  upon  the  people  of  the 
denomination  who  came  up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord.  Erskine 
College  has  done  for  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  and  for 
the  country  a  precious  work.  In  it  nearly  all  the  living 
preachers  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South 
received  their  literary  and  theological  education. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  founding  and  supporting  of  Erskine 
College  stimulated  the  people  of  the  denomination  to  under- 
take other  important  enterprises. 

Very  soon  after  Clark  and  Erskine  Seminary  was  established 
at  Due  West,  other  classical  schools  were  established  in  different 
sections  of  the  Church.  These,  in  due  time,  became  supporters 
of  Erskine  College. 

About  the  same  time  the  necessity  of  a  religious  magazine, 
published  under  the  sanction  of  the  denomination,  became 
manifest.  The  subject  was  discussed,  first  in  private,  and,  in 
1841,  formally  brought  before  the  Synod.     In  this  way  the 


314  HISTORY    OF    THE 

attention  of  tlie  church  wiis  directed  to  the  proposed  enter- 
prise. It  was  approved  of  by  the  people,  and,  in  October,  1842, 
the  committee,  to  which  the  matter  had  been  referred, submit- 
ted the  following  report,  which  was  adopted,  viz. : 

"  AVe  recommend  that  the  editorship  of  the  Christian  Magazine  of  the  South 
be  committed  to  Rev.  J.  Boyce;  the  subscription  now  on  hand  be  put  into  his 
possession,  and  that  he  commence  the  periodical,  if  possible,  as  early  as  Janu- 
ary. 1843." 

In  accordance  with  the  above  recommendation,  the  first 
number  of  the  '•'■  Christian  3Iagazine  of  the  South"  was  pub- 
lished in  Januaiy,  1843.  The  magazine  continued  to  be  issued 
monthly  for  nine  years.  From  the  beginning,  it  ranked  high 
both  in  a  literary  and  theological  point  of  view. 

In  1850,  Messrs.  W.  R.  Hemphill,  J.  O.  Lindsay  and  J.  I. 
Bonner,  began  the  publication  of  the  "  Erskine  Miscellany^'''  a 
weekly  religious  paper. 

In  December,  1851,  the  publication  of  the  '•'Christian  Maga- 
zine of  the  South'"  ceased. 

It  is  probable  that  the  people  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  South  were  unable  at  that  time  to  sustain  both 
publications,  and  that  a  weekly  paper  was  demanded  b}^  the 
times  ;  but  it  is  almost  certain,  that  it  would  have  been  to  the 
interest  of  the  church  to  have  sustained  the  magazine.  There 
are  some  denominational  features  which  a  publication  similar 
to  the  '•'■  Christian  Magazine  of  the  South"  is  admirably  adapted  to 
advance,  but  are  generally  thought  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
popular  notions  of  a  Aveekly  religious  newspaper. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  noticed  that,  although  the 
^^ Christian  Magazine  of  the  South"  was  published  in  tlie  interest 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South,  it  was  not  a 
remunerative  enterprise  to  its  editor.  It  accomplished  much 
for  the  church,  but  little  for  its  editor.  Those  were  the  palmy 
days  of  the  credit  system.  Year  after  year  Dr.  Boyce  con- 
tinued to  prepare  editorials,  which  in  elegance  of  style  will 
compare  favorably  with  the  best  productions  in  the  English 
language.  They  were  read,  admired  and  praised,  but  in  too 
many  instances  not  paid  for. 

"With  a  well  equipped  college  and  a  monthly  magazine  well 
conducted,  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  began  to  move  for- 
ward at  once.  Still  so  few  were  the  ministers  and  members  in 
connection  w^ith  the  denomination,  that  it  was  no  uncommon 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  375 

thing  for  its  name  to  be  on:iitted  "  by  those  who  reckon  up  the 
religious  denominations  of  the  world."  In  1842  there  were 
■only  twenty-five  ministers,  fifty-six  congregations,  thirteen 
hundred  families,  and  about  three  thousand  communicants. 

In  November,  1843,  Eev.  Isaac  Grier,  D.  D.,  died.  In  1803 
lie  was  present,  as  a  licentiate  when  the  the  Associate  Retormed 
Synod  of  the  Carolinas  was  ors^anized.  As  a  pastor  he  was 
present  when  the  Synod,  in  1822,  withdrew  from  the  General 
Synod  and  resolved  itself  into  an  Independent  Synod,  assum- 
ing the  name  "Synod  of  the  South,"  and  in  1839  he  Avas  chair- 
man of  the  committee  which  prepared  a  course  of  study  to  be 
pursued  in  the  Theological  Seminary.  He  saw  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  in  the  South  when  it  was  like  tlie  cloud 
which  the  prophet's  servant  saw  rise  out  of  the  sea-^a  mere 
SDeck  on  the  sky.  He  saAv  it  again  taking  root  and  spreading 
out  its  branches  in  every  direction.  He  saw  it  again  after  it 
had  been  visited  by  death ;  weak,  disheartened,  and  ready  to 
perish.  Finally,  he  saw  it  strong  and  vigorous,  attacking 
Satan  in  his  fortified  castles,  and  bearing  the  glad  tidings  of 
the  gospel  into  portions  of  ever}'  Southern  State. 

MISSIONS. 

The  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South,  no  matter  what 
is  said  to  the  contrary,  has  ever  been  zealous  in  prosecuting 
the  work  of  Missions.  This  is  true  of  all  the  branches  of  the 
Secession  Church.  By  missionaries  the  Secession  Church  was 
planted  in  America,  and  by  the  labors  of  missionaries  its  prin- 
ciples and  practices  have  been  disseminated  from  Boston  to 
Tampico. 

By  the  self-sacrificing  labors  of  Proudfoot,  Martin,  Clark  and 
Boyse  the  Scotch  Seceder  and  Covenanters  Societies  in  the 
Carolinas  and  Georgia  Avere  first  visited,  encouraged  and 
cheered.  By  these  same  men,  in  connection  with  Blackstock, 
Hemphill,  Rogers,  McKnight,  Pressley,  Irwin  and  Grier,  these 
societies  were  organized  into  congregations.  From  1803  to 
1840,  or  even  later,  it  might  be  said  that  every  minister  in 
connection  with  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South, 
no  matter  whether  he  were  a  settled  pastor  or  not,  was  a  mis- 
sionary. With  few  excei^tions,  each  made  an  annual  mission- 
ary tour  of  three  or  four  months.     Mr.  Blackstock,  when  he 


376  HISTORY    OF    THE 

was  an  old  man,  rode  over  Florida,  Georgia,  Alabama  and 
Tennessee,  as  far  as  Obion  county.  During  the  winter  of 
1835-6  Rev.  T.  Turner  rode  more  than  eighteen  hundred 
miles  and  preached  thirty  seven  times  in  three  months. 

The  early  missionary  efforts  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  of  the  South  were  so  great  in  themselves,  and  so  im- 
portant in  their  final  results,  that  their  history  demands  more 
than  a  passing  notice.  That  we  may  be  able  to  place  a  due 
estimate  on  the  early  missionary  enterprises  begun  and  finally 
accomplished,  at  least  in  part,  by  the  Associate  Reibrmed 
Church,  we  must  take  into  consideration  all  the  surrounding 
circumstances. 

One  hundred  years  ago  the  greater  portion  of  the  two  Caro- 
linas  and  Georgia  was  a  wilderness,  dotted  with  only  a  few 
settlements  at  long  intervals  apart.  These  few  settlements  had 
been  reduced  to  a  state  bordering  on  abject  poverty.  They 
had  just  emerged  from  a  long  and  desolating  war,  which  left 
the  inhabitants  of  the  country  stripped  of  everj^thing  but  the 
soil  and  liberty  to  tell  it.  Scarcely  had  the  sad  consequences 
of  the  Revolutionar\^  war  passed  away  and  the  blessings  of 
peace  begun  to  he  enjoyed,  than  the  country  was  visited  by 
another  war.  The  effort  to  propagate  Secederisni  in  the  South 
was  made  just  before  the  Revolutionary  war  ;  was  suspended 
during  that  contest,  and  then  again  begun  before  the  treaty  of 
peace  was  signed.  In  less  than  six  months  after  the  surrender 
of  Cornwallis  at  Yorktown,  the  venerable  Thomas  Clark  set 
out  from  Salem,  New  York,  on  a  missionary  tour  to  the  South. 
He  was  followed  by  John  Jamison  in  1783,  and  a  few  years 
afterward  Ijy  John  Boyse  and  John  Hemphill,  All  these,  ex- 
cept John  Jamison,  settled  as  pastors,  but  their  pastoral  charges 
were  in  reality  extensive  missionary  fields.  For  a  period  of 
thirty -five  years,  a  few  men — never  more  than  seven— preached 
the  gospel,  administered  the  sacraments,  and  performed  other 
pastoral  labors  in  not  less  than  fiftj^  societies,  or  congregations, 
scattered  over  a  tract  of  country  longer  than  England  and  wider 
than  Scotland. 

These  labors  were  performed  cheerfully,  but  with  a  degree  of 
bodily  toil  and  sacrifice,  at  the  thoughts  of  which  a  modern 
missionary's  heart  would  faint  and  fail.  The  men  who  planted 
the  Associate  Reformed   Church  in  tbe  South  were  literally 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTEllY,  37 T 

'•in  journeyings  often,  in  perils  of  waters,  in  perils  of  robbers, 
in  perils  of  their  own  countrymen,  *  *  in  perils  in  the  wil- 
derness," and  several  of  them  were  "  in  perils  of  the  sea,"  and 
sad  are  we  to  say  that  they  all  were  sometimes  "  in  perils 
amons^  false  brethren."  They  sought  neither  gold  nor  silver  'y 
houses  nor  land ;  but  God  granted  them  all  an  abundance  of 
the  good  things  of  life,  and  bestowed  upon  them  the  rich  bless- 
ing which  attends  the  consciousness  of  having  been  faithful 
even  unto  death. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  at  Hopewell,  Chester  county, 
South  Carolina,  in  October,  1817,  the  following  resolutions 
were  adopted,  viz : 

^^  ReHolved.  That  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  and  extending  the  influence  of 
Messiali's  reign  and  more  effectually  propagating  the  doctrines  of  grace  and 
salvation,  a  Missionary  Fund  be  raised  and  missionaries  be  sent  out  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  sinners. 

'•  Resolved.  That  John  T.  Pressley  and  Charles  Strong  be  a  committee  to  pre- 
pare an  address  to  the  chui'ches  relating  to  supporting  missionaries  engaged  in 
proclaiming  the  gospel  to  sinners." 

At  the  same  meeting  pastors  were  instructed  to  take  up  col- 
lections in  their  several  congregations  and  report  to  the  Synod 
at  the  next  meeting. 

A  thousand  copies  of  the  address  prepared  by  Messrs.  Press- 
ley  and  Strong  were  printed  and  distributed  among  the  congre- 
gations ;  but,  so  far  as  appears  from  the  minutes,  but  little  was 
done  in  the  way  of  collecting  money. 

Rev.  Isaac  Grier  reported  that  one  of  his  congregations.  Steel 
Creek,  had  contributed  forty  dollars.  During  the  year  1819  three 
hundred  and  twenty-three  dollars  and  seventy-three  and  three - 
fourths  cents  were  collected.  Of  this  amount,  Mr.  HemphilTs 
charge  contributed  one  hundred  and  eighty-nine  dollars  and 
twelve  and  one-half  cents;  the  united  congregations  of  Canon 
Creek,  King's  Creek  and  Prosperity,  one  hundred  and  two  dol- 
lars and  twelve  and  one-half  cents ;  Mr.  Blackstock,  thirty-two 
dollars  and  fortj^-eight  and  three-fourth  cents.  The  whole,  to- 
gether with  the  forty  dollars  contributed  by  Steel  Creek,  was 
put  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Hemphill,  Synod's  treasurer.  The 
object  for  which  the  n:iissionary  fund  was  created,  was  for  "the 
purpose  of  supporting  those  who  were  sent  out  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  sinners."  In  harmony  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of 
this  design,  the  Synod,  in  1819,  directed  Rev.  John  T.  Pressley 


318  HISTORY    OF    THE 

"to  take  a  missionary  tour  of  eight  weeks  in  a  western  direc- 
tion." At  the  next  meeting  of  Synod,  }»lr.  I.'ressley  reported 
that  he  had  rode  upward  of  nine  hundred  miles,  and  preached 
on  an  average  ever}"  alternate  day.  His  expenses  were  thirty- 
three  dollars  and  forty-three  cents,  and  he  received  from  those 
to  whom  he  preaclied  seventeen  dollars  and  twenty-iive  cents. 
Synod  ordered  tliat  his  expenses  be  paid,  and  he  be  allowed 
seven  dollars  per  week. 

In  this  missionary  tour,  Mr.  Pressley  visited  and  preached 
nt  a  number  of  points  in  Georgia,  in  Alabama  and  in  Middle 
Tennessee.  The  small  societies  in  those  States  were  gathered 
together  and,  as  a  result  of  his  labors,  were  in  a  few  years  or- 
ganized into  congregations. 

In  1820,  Rev.  Isaac  Grier  "  was  a[i[)ointed  to  the  labors  of  a 
missionary,'"  but  for  how  long  and  in  wliat  region  the  minutes 
do  not  state.  From  another  and  reliable  source  it  is  learned 
that  his  labors  were  confined  to  the  States  of  Florida,  Alabama 
and  Georgia,  and  that  they  continued  for  three  or  four  months. 
According  to  his  journal,  Mr.  Grier  "traversed  upwards  of 
thirteen  hundred  miles,  preached  on  twenty  dift'erent  days,  re- 
•ceived  fifty  dollars  for  Synod's  fund  and  expended  thirty  seven 
dollars." 

In  1821,  "Rev.  Mr.  Blackstockwas  appointed  a  missionary  to 
perform  a  tour  of  fourteen  weeks,  nearly  in  the  same  course  of 
former  missionaries."  The  duty  assigned  him  he  performed  to 
the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  Synod.  It  is  worthy  of  being  put 
on  record,  that,  although  the  field  to  be  traversed  by  these  first 
missionaries  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  was 
ver}'  large,  and  the  labor  exhausting  and  the  comforts  few, 
there  is  not  a  single  instance  in  which  a  failure  is  reported. 
Xearly  the  whole  of  this  early  missionary  work  was,  for  good 
reasons,  no  doubt,  put  upon  Messrs.  Blackstock,  Grier  and 
Pressley.  The  first  work  given  a  young  man,  after  being 
licensed,  was  to  send  him  out  on  an  extensive  missionary  tour. 
The  points  visited  b\'  Messrs.  Grier,  Pressley  and  Blackstock, 
and  their  location,  so  far  as  can  be  learned  at  present,  were 
what  is  now  Troj',  Obion  county,  Tennessee.  This  point  was 
visited  first  by  Mr.  Blackstock,  in  the  winter  of  1821-2.  Union 
and  Hopewell,  in  Maury  county,  and  Xew-Hope,  Head  Spring 
and  Prosperity,  in  Lincoln  count}',  Tennessee,  were  visited  by 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  379 

Rev.  Jolm  T.  Pressley,  in  the  winter  of  1819-20.  Covington, 
Georj^ia,  was  visited  by  Rev.  John  T.  Pressley,  first  in  the  win- 
ter of  1819  ;  at  the  same  time  he  visited  Bethel,  Prosperity 
and  Salem,  in  Alabama.  The  other  points  in  Alabama  were 
Hopewell,  'New  Ireland,  Fairview,  Mount  Pleasant,  Cahaba, 
Zalmonah,  Xanafalia,  Pine  Barren  and  Russel's  Valley.  In 
Florida,  Tallahasse  and  other  points  Avere  visited  by  both  Mr. 
Grier  and  Blackstock.  The  names  of  several  of  these  places 
were  changed,  some  still  bear  the  old  names,  some  have  ceased 
to  exist,  and  a  few  are  knov/n  b}^  the  old  names  but  are  in  con- 
nection with  other  denominations  of  Christians. 

With  some  propriety,  the  missionary  tours  of  Messrs.  Black- 
stock,  Grier  and  Pressley  might  be  called  exploring  expedi- 
tions. Perhaps  it  would  be  more  in  accordance  with  Scripture 
phraseoloo^y  to  call  them  Evangelists,  and  their  labors  evangel- 
istic labors.  If  they  did  not  build  up  strong  Associate  Re- 
formed congregations,  they  contributed  in  no  small  degree  to 
the  evangelizing  of  the  great  States  in  which  th^ir  labors  were 
performed.  They  began  a  work  which  is  not  yet  finished.  It 
is  still  going  on,  and  will  go  on  until  sun  and  moon  and  stars 
fade  into  darkness. 

The  territory  explored  by  these  venerable  fathers  was  after- 
ward visited  by  Harris,  Bryson,  Gallov^'ay,  Boyce,  Turner  and 
-others,  and  finally  the  Presbyteries  of  Alabama,  Tennessee, 
Kentucky  and  Memphis  were  organized  out  of  the  materials 
gathered  up  and  arranged  by  these  faithful  missionaries  of  the 
-cross. 

It  would  be  doing  the  memories  of  the  fathers,  Hemphill, 
Rogers,  McKnight,  Irwin,  Reuwick,  Lowrj*  and  Strong,  great 
injustice  were  it  not  mentioned  that  while  Blackstock,  Pressley 
and  Grier  were  making  their  long  missionary  tours,  they  were 
supplying  their  pulpits  and  performing  pastoral  work  in  their 
respective  congregations. 

To  this  system  of  domestic  missions  the  present  existence  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  the  South  is  mainh'  due. 
The  Synod  has  ever  been  crippled  in  prosecuting  this  great 
work  to  the  full  extent  of  the  demands,  on  account  of  the  want 
■of  preachers  and  the  means  to  support  them. 


3  80  HISTORY    OF    THE 

FOREIGN    MISSIONS. 

When  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  early  history 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  are  duly  con- 
sidered, we  are  prepared  to  conclude  that,  by  the  providence  of 
God,  the  missionar}^  efforts  of  the  denomination  were  restricted 
to  the  home  field.  For  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  no 
door  of  opening  was  made  for  the  Synod,  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  to  carry  the  gospel  to  a  people  of  a  strange  language. 
During  this  period  the  domestic  missionary  labors  of  the  Synod 
were  attended  with  all  and  even  more  b<.)dily  sacrifice  and  men- 
tal solicitude  than  at  present  attends  similar  labors  among  the 
inhabitants  of  China,  or  among  the  Copts  of  Egypt,  or  the 
Catholics  of  Mexico. 

The  first  time,  so  far  as  the  minutes  show,  that  the  subject 
of  Foreign  Missions  was  brought  before  the  Synod,  was  in 
October,  1837.  At  that  time  it  was  "  resolved  that  every  min- 
ister of  our  Synod  lift  a  collection  at  his  Spring  communion  to 
aid  Foreign  Missions.'"'  It  is  probable  that  collections  "  to  aid 
Foroio;!!  Missions"  had  been  "lifted"  in  all  the  settled  charges 
long  before  this  period.  The  members  of  the  denomination 
had  been  trained  to  contribute  to  support  foreign  missions- 
The  Associate  Reformed  Cliurch  in  l>oth  its  branches  was,  as 
has  been  seen,  the  direct  fruit  of  foreign  missionarj'  labors,  sup- 
ported by  contributions  made  by  the  mother  Church  in  Ire- 
land and  Scotland.  As  a  proof  of  the  statement  that  the 
Associate  Reformed  people  were  educated  to  believe  that  the 
support  of  Foreign  Missions  was  a  part  of  Christian  duty,  it 
may  be  stated  that  nine  congregations,  in  1838,  contributed 
for  that  purpose  three  hundred  and  twenty-seven  dollars. 

It  was  not,  at  that  time,  the  intention  of  tjie  Synod  to  send 
out  a  missionarj^  into  some  foreign  land.  For  this  they  were 
not  prepared,  and  so  they  wisely  concluded.  With  a  noble 
Christian  generosit}^  they  proposed  to  assist,  to  the  measure  of 
their  ability,  other  Christian  denominations  to  do  what  God  in 
His  providence  saw  fit  not  to  permit  them  to  do  themselves. 

The  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  which  at  that  time  (1837) 
consisted  of  Messrs.  J.  L.  Young,  John  Wilson  andW.  Flenni- 
kin  were  directed  "  to  transmit  the  moneys  that  are  collected 
for  Foreign  Missions,  to  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  38i 

Synod  of  Xew  York."     In  1839  the  following  resolution,  f)f- 
fered  by  Messrs.  J.  Boyce  and  T.  Turner,  was  adopted,  viz : 

"  That  the  moneys  now  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions 
and  moneys  hereafter  to  be  collected  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  (Covenanters),  to  be  applied  to 
the  use  of  their  missionaries  in  India,  until  Synod  shall  have  missionai-ies  of  her 
own  to  send  to  a  foreign  field." 

To  what  extent  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  ISTew  York 
and  the  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  were  aid- 
ed in  supporting  Foreign  Missions  by  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  South  is  not  certainly  known.  Botli  received 
assistance,  but  only  for  a  few  years. 

It  is  worthy  of  mention  in  this  place  that  three  of  the  first 
converts  in  India  from  heathen  darkness,  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  labors  of  Covenanter  missionaries,  were  given 
the  Christian  names,  William  Blackstock,  Isaac  Grier  and  John 
Hemphill.  This  was  an  indication  of  a  feeling  of  gratitude 
towards  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  which 
both  the  converted  heathen  and  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Ohurch  were  anxious  to  express. 

In  1843,  "  Mr.  T.  Turner  ottered  to  the  Synod  a  preamble  and 
resolution,  recommending  that  inquiries  be  instituted  in  rela- 
tion to  the  expedienc}'  of  establishing  a  mission  in  the  colony 
•of  Liberia,  or  ac  some  point  on  the  western  coast  of  Africa."' 
The  words,  "some  foreign  field"  were  substituted  for  "the 
<?olony  of  Liberia,  or  at  some  point  on  the  western  coast  of 
Africa."  This  change  being  made,  the  preamble  and  resolu- 
tion were  adopted,  and  ]\Iessrs.  J.  Boyce,  T.  Turner  and  X.  ]M. 
'Gordon  appointed  a  committee  to  j-cport  on  the  subject  at  the 
next  meeting  of  Sj'nod. 

The  committee  reported  "  that,  as  far  as  their  inquiries  had 
extended,  they  have  not  been  able  to  discover  in  the  present 
possession  of  Synod,  either  men  or  means  adequate  to  the  im- 
mediate  midertaking  ;  yet,  in  their  estimation,  the  day  is  not 
far  distant,  when,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  we  may  be  able  to 
secure  suitable  laborers,  and  have  at  command  all  the  facilities 
to  .engage  in  the  laudable  work  of  preaching  the  gospel  beyond 
the  limits  of  our  domestic  field,  even  among  the  heathen  na- 
tions of  the  world." 

The  committee  recommended,  as  a  proper  location  for  com- 
mencing the  work  of  Foreign  Missions,  either  the  south-west 


382  HISTORY    OF    THE 

of  oar  own  countrj^amoncr  the  Indian  tribes,  or  on  the  western 
coast  of  Africa.  The  committee  concluded  their  report  by 
recommending  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution,  viz.  : 

That  it  be  the  duty  of  each  minister  of  Synod  to  make  inquiry  for  a  suitable 
person  or  jjersons,  who  will  engaj^e  in  this  important  work,  in  either  of  the  above 
named  fields,  and  if  the  desired  information  ho  obtained  report  the  same  to 
Synod  as  soon  as  practicable. 

This  resolution  was  adopted,  and  also  another,  recommend- 
ing Rev.  J.  C  Chalmers,  treasurer  of  the  Foi'eign  IMissionary 
Fund,  to  place  all  moneys  on  hand,  or  hereafter  collected,  at 
interest. 

The  subject  of  Foreign  Missions  now  began  to  assume  the 
proportions  of  a  living  reality.  The  people  became  interested. 
Missionary  societies  were  organized.  Missionarj'  sermons  and 
missionary  conferences  became  a  regular  part  of  the  business 
transactions  at  every  meeting  of  Synod.  A  number  of  persons 
generously  offered  to  give  valuable  servants  to  the  Synod,  that 
they  might  be  prepared  to  preach  the  gospel  and  then  be  sent  to 
proclaim  the  glad  tidings  to  the  sable  sons  of  Africa. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  in  1845,  Mr.  Turner  proposed 
that  a  mission  be  established  in  Liberia,  and  that  a  colored  man 
be  sent  in  the  capacity  of  a  missionary  to  that  point.  This  be- 
ing regarded  by  the  Synod  as  too  precipitate,  the  matter  was 
deferred  for  a  year.  In  the  meantime  the  subject  was  discussed 
in  the  '•'•  Christian  Ilagazinc  of  the  South." 

In  1846,  Mr.  W.  R.  Hemphill,  in  behalf  of  the  special  com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Missions,  "recommended  the  establishment 
of  a  mission  school  in  Kentucky,  in  Africa,  to  be  under  the 
supervision  of  Thomas  Ware,  a  colored  nian,  now  in  Africa." 

The  recommendation  of  Mr.  Hemphill  gave  rise  to  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolutions,  viz. : 

1.  That  Rev.  Gilbert  Gordon,  Rev.  N.  M.  Gordon  and  Mr.  Shannon  Reid.  of 
Kentucky,  be  appointed  a  committee  to  ascertain  the  character  of  Thomas 
AVare,  his  suitableness  as  a  mission  teacher,  a  suitable  location  for  a  school,  ex- 
penses of  such  school,  and  report  to  next  meeting  of  Synod. 

2.  That  Messrs.  Watt,  Grier,  J.  M.  Young  and  D.  Pressley  be  a  committee  to 
select  some  two  colored  persons  who  have  been  offered  to  the  service  of  Synod, 
to  be  sent  to  Kentucky,  to  be  educated  for  the  African  mission. 

During  the  next  synodical  year  little  progress  was  made, 
except  that  a  place  in  Liberia,  called  Kentucky,  was  settled 
upon  a^  the  proper  location  in  which  to  establish  a  Foreign 


ASSOCIATE    rRESBYTERY.  383 

Mission.  The  prospects,  for  a  few  years,  seemed  to  warrant 
the  indulgence  of  the  hope  tliat  the  enterprise  would  finally 
be  crowned  with  success. 

At  their  meeting  in  October,  1847,  Synod  appointed  a  com- 
mittee, consisting  of  a  member  selected  from  each  of  the  six 
presbyteries,  to  take  the  whole  matter  in  hand,  and,  if  possi- 
ble, put  the  mission  into  operation. 

This  committee  opened  a  correspondence  with  the  secretary 
of  the  African  Colonization  Society,  and  also  with  Thomas 
AVare,  a  colored  man,  who  was  at  that  time  engaged  in  teach- 
ing in  Liberia.  The  correspondence  was  every  way  satisfactory, 
and  a  call  was  made  for  missionaries.  Three  colored  boys  were 
placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  Synod.  Dr.  George  W.  Pressley 
gave  his  boy  Harrison,  Mr.  James  Robinson  gave  his  boy  Wil- 
liam, and  the  Misses  Murphy  gave  their  boy  Pinkney. 

In  :N"ovember,  1848,  Thomas  Ware  died,  but  Rev.  H.  W. 
Erskine,  of  the  Presbyterian  Board,  took  his  place.  An  ap- 
plication was  made  to  the  government  of  Liberia  for  a  grant 
of  twenty  acres  of  land.  This  request  was  readily  acceded  to. 
Four  boys  were  placed  under  the  care  of  Mr.  Erskine,  to  be 
trained  for  the  ministr}'.  These  boys  were  selected  by  Mr. 
Erskine  himself  in  Africa. 

In  the  meantime  a  school  was  opened  by  the  Synod  in  Ken- 
tucky, for  the  training  of  colored  men  for  the  responsible  posi- 
tion of  missionaries.  The  school  was  presided  over  by  iST.  M. 
Gordon,  of  the  Presbytery  of  Kentucky,  and  was  modeled  on 
the  "  manual  labor"  plan.  That  his  school  was  defective  in  its 
organization  and  in  its  mode  of  operation,  does  not  admit  of  a 
moment's  doubt.  Some  enterprises  fail  because  they  do  not  re- 
ceive moral  and  pecuniary  support.  Such  was  not  the  case 
with  respect  to  the  African  Mission  School  established  in  Ken- 
tucky b}'  the  Associate  Reformed  Sjmod  of  the  South.  It 
failed  because  of  its  defective  organization. 

The  African  Mission  dragged  itself  along  until  1853.  The 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  in  their  report  of  that  year,  say  : 

•■  It  becomes  our  painful  duty  to  report  to  the  Sj'nod  the  failure  of  the  African 
Mission,  so  far  as  regards  the  training  or  preparation  of  the  boys  that  have  been 
placed  under  the  supervision  of  Rev.  N.  M.  Gordon."' 


384  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Two  of  the  boys  became  immoral  In  their  conduct,  and  the 
third  was  regarded  as  intellectually  unfit  to  accomplish  the 
w^ork  for  which  he  had  been  selected. 

The  preparatory  mission  school  closed,  and  no  further  effort 
was  ever  made  to  open  it. 

In  Africa  some  good,  no  doubt,  was  done,  but  it  was  of  the 
most  general  character. 

In  the  school  of  Mr.  Erskine  four  boys  were  supported  for 
several  years  by  the  Synod.  So  far  as  establishing  an  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Mission  was  concerned,  nothing  was  efiected.  In 
1855  the  Board  recommended  that,  for  the  present,  the  Synod 
cease  to  support  "the  boys  in  Mr.  Erskine's  school."  The  en- 
terprise cost  Synod  a  considei'able  sum  of  money,  which  appa- 
rently accomplished  little  good.  The  great  defect  of  the  school 
established  in  Kentucky,  and  presided  over  by  Rev.  'N.  M.  Gor- 
non,  was  that  the  "  manual  labor"  feature  was  made  too  prom- 
inent, and  it  was  suspicioned  this  was  for  the  private  ends  of 
those  immediately  in  charge.  It  was  an  all  work  and  no  study 
school. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  385 


CHAPTER  XXYII. 

FOR  THIRTY  YEARS  ONLY  TWO  PRESBYTERIES— Their  Boundaries— Or- 
ganization of  the  Tennessee  Presbytery — Of  the  Alabama,  Kentucky  and 
Georgia  Presbyteries — Of  the  Memphis  Presbytery — Of  Virginia  Presbytery 
— Of  Arkansas  Presbytery — Of  the  Ohio  Presbytery — Of  the  Texas  Presby- 
tery— Proposed  Union  with  tlie  Presbyterian  Church — Their  Difference. 

For  a  period  of  more  tljan  thirty  3'ears  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  of  the  South  was  composed  of  01113^  two  presby- 
teries. The  presbytery  organized  at  Long  Cane,  Abbeville 
county,  South  Carolina,  on  February  24th,  1790,  was  appro- 
priately named  the  Presbyterj^  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia, 
because  the  congregations  over  which  it  assumed  jurisdiction 
were  situated  in  the  two  Carolinas  and  Georgia.  For  the  con- 
venience of  the  members,  and  also  as  a  preparatory  step  to  the 
organization  of  the  General  Synod,  the  Presbytery  of  the  Caro- 
linas and  Georgia  was  divided,  and  two  presbyteries  formed. 
Broad  river,  in  South  Carolina,  was  made  the  dividing  line. 
All  east  of  that  stream  and  south  of  Virginia  was  denominated 
the  First  Presbytery  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia,  and  all  west, 
the  Second  Vreshytery  of  the  .Carolinas  arid  Georgia  These  pres- 
byteries are  how^  known  as  the  First  and  the  Second. 

The  First  Presbytery  perpetuated  the  original  organization. 
The  Second  was  constitutionally  organized  at  Cedar  Spring, 
Abbeville  county.  South  Carolina,  on  the  8th  of  April,  1801. 
The  members  of  the  Second  Presbytery,  at  the  time  of  its  or- 
ganization, were  Alexander  Porter,  Peter  McMullan,  William 
Dixon  and  David  Bothwell,  settled  pastors  ;  James  McGil], 
licentiate;  Robert  Irwin  and  Isaac  Grier,  students  of  theology. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  boundaries  of  both  these  presbyteries 
were  very  indefinite.  The  territory  south  and  west  of  Vir- 
ginia was  divided  by  Broad  river,  and  in  it  two  presbyteries 
constituted.  The  Second  Presbytery,  like  the  original  bounda- 
r}^  of  South  Carolina,  extended  westward  from  Broad  river  to 
the  South  Sea. 
20 


386  HISTORY  or  the 

This  arrano^ement  coiitinaed  until  the  fall  of  183G  when,  on 
account  of  its  increase,  the  Synod  deemed  "it  expedient  to 
form  a  new  presbyterj^  in  the  West."  The  boundary  of  this 
new  presbytery  is  thus  given  :  "  To  commence  on  the  Missis- 
sippi river  at  the  point  of  34°  north  latitude,  and  run  east  to 
the  Georgia  line,  thence  north  to  Tennessee,  thence  with  the 
eastern  line  of  Tennessee  to  the  middle  of  the  State  of  Ken- 
tucky, thence  west  to  the  Mississippi  river,  thence  down  that 
river  to  the  beginning."  The  ecclesiastical  court  having  juris- 
diction over  the  members  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
who  were  scattered  over  this  extensive  district,  Avas  named  the 
Presbytery  op  Tennessee. 

The  ministers  laboring  within  the  bounds  of  this  new  pres- 
bytery, and  in  connection  with  it,  were  R.  M.  Galloway,  Henry 
Bryson,  Eleazar  Harris  and  John  Wilson.  These,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  appointment  of  Synod,  met  at  Salem  Church, 
Tipton  county,  West  Tennessee,  on  the  fourth  ISlonday  of 
April,  1837,  and  constituted  the  Presbytery  of  Tennessee.  At 
the  meeting  of  the  Sj-nod  in  1842,  it  was  thought  proper  to- 
erect  three  new  presbyteries,  and  a  resolution  to  that  effect  was 
offered  and  adopted.  These  three  new  presbyteries  Avere  to  be 
designated,  respectivelj',  Alabama,  Kentucky  and  Georgia. 

The  Alabama  Presbytery,  the  territorial  limits  of  which 
were  those  of  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  was  or- 
ganized on  Friday  before  the  first  Sabbath  of  December,  1842, 
at  Prosperity  Church,  Dallas  count}-,  Alabama.  The  ministers 
in  connection  with  this  presbytery  at  the  time  of  its  organiza- 
tion were,  Joseph  McCreary,  James  M.  Young  and  David 
Pressley. 

The  Kentuck}'  Presbytery,  which  embraced  all  the  Associate 
Reformed  congregations  in  the  States  of  Kentucky  and  Mis- 
souri, was  organized  at  Ebenezer  Church,  Jessamine  county, 
Kentucky,  on  Friday  before  the  third  Sabbath  in  December^ 
1842.  The  ministers  at  that  time  in  connection  with  the  Ken- 
tucky Presbyter}^  were,  Gilbert  Gordon,  IST.  M.  Gordon  and 
William  II.  Rainey. 

The  Presbytery  of  Georgia  was  organized  at  Bethel,  Burke 
county,  Georgia,  on  Friday,  the  31st  of  March,  1843.  This 
presbytery  embraced  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  a  few  vacancies 
in  Alabama  and  Tennessee.     The  ministers   constituting:  the 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY,  387 

Presbytery  of  Georgia  were  John  S.  Pressley,  Thomas  Turner 
and  J).  C.  Haslett.  The  ruling  elders  were  Alexander  Cowan 
and  William  Little. 

On  Friday,  before  the  second  Sabbath  of  April,  1853,  the 
Memphis  Presbytei'y  was  organized  at  Salem  Church,  Tipton 
county,  Tennessee.  This  Presbytery  consisted  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod  living  in  the  western  district  of  Tennessee, 
and  in  north  iSIississippi.  Their  names  were  John  Wilson,  J. 
P.  Weed,  J.  K.  Boyce,  J.  A.  Sloan,  II.  II.  Robinson,  J.  L. 
Young  and  S.  P.  Davis. 

The  Presbytery  of  Virginia  was  organized  at  Ebenezer, 
Rockbridge  count}-,  Virginia,  on  INIonday,  the  8th  of  May, 
1854.  It  embraced  all  the  ministers  and  congregations  in  con- 
nection with  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South, 
within  the  geographical  limits  of  the  State  of  Virginia.  The 
ministers  connected  with  the  Virginia  Presbytery  were  Horatio 
Thompson,  I.  G.  ]McLaiighlin  and  W.  M.  McElwee ;  and  A. 
B.  Beamer,  student. 

The  Arkansas  Presbytery  was  organized  at  Pisgah  Church, 
Pope  county,  Arkansas,  on  Friday,  before  the  first  Sabbath  of 
May,  1861.  Its  territorial  limits  were  those  of  the  State  of 
Arkansas.  The  ministers  in  connection  with  the  Arkansas 
Presbytery,  at  the  time  of  its  organization,  were  John  Patrick, 
J.  M.  Brown,  J.  A.  Dickson,  W.  S.  Moftat  and  A.  Mayn. 

The  Ohio  Presbytery  was  organized  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Na- 
thaniel Taylor,  in  Belmont  county,  Ohio,  on  the  20th  of  Febru- 
ary, 1865.  Its  proper  name  was  the  First  Associate  Reformed 
Presbytery  of  Ohio.  Those  taking  part  in  the  organization  were 
Revs.  E.  B.  Calderhead  and  James  Borrows,  and  ruling  elders, 
William  Andrews  and  Joseph  Mehollin.  In  1867  it  made  ap- 
plication to  be  received  under  the  care  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Sjniod  of  the  South.  This  request  was  granted,  and  it 
was  ever  after  known  as  the  Presbytery  of  Ohio. 

The  Texas  Presbytery  was  organized  at  Harmony  Church, 
Freestone  county,  Texas,  on  the  9th  of  December,  1876.  The 
ministers  constitutiug  the  organization  were  T.  J.  Bonner,  J. 
M.  Little  and  W.  L.  Patterson.  This  presbytery  has  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction  over  all  the  Associate  Reformed  congrega- 
tions in  the  State  of  Texas. 


o8»  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Two  (-f  these  presbyteries — Georgia  and  Ohio — liave  ceased 
to  have  an  oiganic  existeuee.  In  1875  the  Georgia  Presbytery 
was,  at  its  own  request,  merged  into  the  Second  Presbytery ; 
and,  in  1879,  the  Presbytery  of  Ohio  asked  and  obtained  per- 
mission of  Synod  to  coalesce  with  tlie  United  Presbyterian 
Chm-cli.  This  it  did  not,  however,  do  until  the  30th  of  May, 
1881. 

The  Presbyteries  of  Tennessee  and  Alabama  were,  by  the  ac- 
tion of  Synod,  consolidated  on  the  24tii  of  September,  1881. 
The  consolidated  Presbytery  held  its  first  meeting  at  Ilopew^ell, 
Maury  county,  Tennessee,  on  the  21st  of  April,  1882.  It  is 
now  known  as  the  Presbytery  of  Tennessee  and  Alabama. 

On  several  occasions,  beginning  at  an  early  period,  efforts 
were  made  to  form  a  union  between  the  Presbyterian  Church 
and  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South.  Committees 
were  appointed  by  both  bodies,  and  conferences  were  held,  but 
no  basis  was  ever  devised  which  was  entirely  satisfactory  to 
either  party.  The  main  barrier  in  the  way  to  an  organic  union 
between  these  two  bodies  is  the  different  doctrinal  opinions 
lield  by  the  two  denonvinations  respecting  psalmody.  The 
point  of  divergence  is  not  respecting,  as  some  erroneously 
think,  a  version  of  the  Psalms,  but  the  Psalms  themselves. 
The  Confession  of  Faith  of  these  two  denominations  is,  we 
may  safely  say,  the  same.  It  is  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms,  Larger  and  Shorter.  The  psalmody  of 
the  two  churches,  however,  is  as  different  in  practice  as  it  is 
possible  for  it  to  be. 

The  position  held  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  on 
psalmod}",  as  laid  down  in  her  Confession  of  Faith,  and  as  ex- 
hibited in  her  practice,  is  that  the  one  hundred  and  fifty 
psalms  contained  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  in  the  Bible,  is  the 
psalmody  of  the  church.  That  there  may  be  no  ambiguity 
about  the  position  held,  it  is  added,  "  nor  shall  any  composure 
merely  human  be  sung  in  anv  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Churches." 

iNot  one  word  is  said  about  the  version.  It  is  taken  for 
granted  that  some  metrical  version  which  is  faithful  to  the 
original,  or  which  will  express  the  whole  sense,  and  nothing  but 
the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  Psalter  will  be  adopted. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  389 

jSTo  matter  what  may  be  the  position  occupied  by  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  on  psahiiody,  it  is  manifestly,  both  in  theorj- 
and  practice,  not  that  held  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church. 
Such  being  the  case,  every  effort  which  has  been  made  to  unite 
the  two  denominations  has  been  ineffectual  ;  and  so  long  as  the 
two  denominations  continue  to  hold  their  present  opinions  con- 
cerning psalmody,  no  organic  union  will  ever  be  formed. 

It  ma3'  be  added,  as  a  matter  of  history,  that  every  effort  to 
consolidate  the  Presbyterian  and  Associate  Reformed  denomi- 
nations resulted,  not  only  ineffectual,  but  injurious.  !Misunder- 
standings  sprung  up  between  the  committees,  and  these  Avere 
disseminated,  in  various  ways,  among  the  membership  of 
the  two  denominations.  The  Presbyterian  Church  was  not 
strengthened,  and  it  is  certain  the  Associate  Reformed  Church 
was  weakened,  and  a  real  injury  done  to  Christianity. 

The  general  sameness  of  these  two  denominations  is  admit- 
ted by  both  the  ministerial  and  lay  members  in  their  connec- 
tion. They  have,  in  part,  the  same  ecclesiastical  ancestry — 
both  claim  the  Church  of  Scotland  as  mother — and  in  a  long 
series  of  doctrines  and  duties  they  are  one.  In  addition  to 
this,  it  may  be  added,  the  congregations  of  the  two  denomina- 
tions in  several  sections  of  the  countr\'  overlap  each  other,  and 
the  members  are  wedded  together  by  the  ties  of  consanguinity 
and  marriage.  Still  they  differ  on  psalmody.  This  has  been 
sufficient  to  keep  up  the  separate  organizations.  No  doubt 
their  division  is  schism,  but  the  blame  does  not  rest  exclusively 
on  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  It  is  proper  to  mention 
that  all  the  efforts  made  to  effect  a  union  of  the  Presbyterian 
and  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  were  made  prior 
to  the  union  of  the  Old  School  and  Xew  School  Presbyterian 
Churches. 

This  transaction  had  a  direct  tendency  to  cool  the  ardor  of 
the  most  earnest  advocates  of  union  in  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod.  Those  who  had  most  earnestly  plead  for  union  with 
the  Old  School  Presbyterian  Church  ceased  entirely  to  advo- 
cate it,  and  became  its  open  opposers  when  the  union  of  the 
Old  School  and  Isew  School  denominations  was  consummated. 
Right  or  wrong  the  N'ew  School  branch  was  regarded  as  hold- 
ing many  heterodox  doctrines,  as  well  as  being  very  loose  in 
discipline. 


390  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  XXA^III. 

THE  WAR — Its  Causes — Results — State  of  the  Country — Institutions  of  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church — Erskine  College — Foreign  Missions — Theological 
Seminary — Christian  Magazine  of  the  South — Erskine  Miscellany — Due  West 
Telescope — Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian — Due  West  Female  College. 

At  the  general  election  in  the  autumn  of  1860,  Abraham 
Lincoln,  of  Illinois,  was  chosen  President  of  the  United  States. 
This  was  the  proximate  cause  of  what,  with  propriety,  is  called 
the  civil  war.  The  real  causes  of  that  event  Avere  many  and 
complicated.  It  would  perhaps  be  safe  to  say  that  the  princi- 
pal cause  was  slavery.  For  a  period  of  half  a  century  the  opin- 
ions of  the  two  great  sections  of  the  United  States  had  been 
constantly  verging  toward  ultraism  with  reference  to  the  sys- 
tem of  slavery  as  it  existed  in  the  South.  There  was,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  diversity  of  opinions  respecting  the  institution  of 
slavery,  a  want  of  agreement  in  opinion  respecting  the  import 
of  the  National  Constitution.  One  party  held  that  the  States 
are  subordinate  to  the  general  government,  and  that  the  union 
of  the  States  is  indissoluble.  Another  party  held  that  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  nation  is  lodged,  not  in  the  general  govern- 
ment, but  in  the  individual  States ;  and  that  the  compact  en- 
tered into  between  the  several  States  is  only  voluntary,  and, 
consequently,  not  indissoluble.  There  were  several  other  causes 
wdiich  served  to  foster  the  alienation  of  feeling  produced  by 
the  discussion  of  the  main  questions  at  issue.  Among  these 
may  be  mentioned  the  31issouri  Agitation  of  1820-21 ;  the  Nul- 
lification Ads  of  South  Carolina,  in  1832;  the  Annexation  of 
l^exas  in  1845,  and  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  of  1854. 

In  addition  to  the  above  causes  of  the  rupture,  it  may  be 
mentioned  that  from  1850  to  1860,  to  say  nothing  of  the  pre- 
ceding and  succeeding  years,  the  country  was  overstocked  with 
third-rate  politicians.  Statesmanship  of  the  first  order,  and 
genuine  patriotism  had  been  forced  to  retire  into  obscurity,  and 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY,  391 

the  management  of  the  public  aliairs  of  the  countiy  had  been, 
by  a  fatal  necessity,  entrusted  largel}'  to  ambitious,  not  to  saj' 
unprincipled,  demagogues. 

The  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln  was  followed  b}"  a  Con- 
•vention  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina.  This  Convention 
met  in  the  city  of  Columbia,  on  the  17th  of  December,  1860; 
organized,  and  on  the  same  day  adjourned  to  Institute  Hall,  in 
the  citj'  of  Charleston.  Here,  on  the  20th,  was  passed  an  Or- 
dinance by  which  all  compacts  previously  entered  into  between 
the  State  of  South  Carolina  and  the"  other  States  constituing 
the  United  States  of  N^orth  America  were  dissolved,  and  the 
independent  sovereignty  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  boldly 
asserted. 

Other  States  followed  the  example  of  South  Carolina  ;  the 
Confederate  government  was  organized,  and  the  two  great 
sections  of  the  country  began  in  earnest  to  make  preparations 
for  the  conflict. 

The  first  gun  was  fired  on  Fort  Sumter,  at  lialf-past  four 
o'clock,  on  the  morning  of  the  12th  of  April,  1861,  from  a 
South  Carolina  battery.  The  first  blood  shed  was  on  the  19th 
of  the  same  month.  AVhile  the  first  regiments  of  volunteers, 
sent  by  Massachusetts,  were  passing  through  the  city  of  Balti- 
more, on  their  way  to  the  national  capital,  they  were  fired  upon 
by  the  citizens,  and  three  men  killed. 

"When  the  civil  war  began,  the  American  people  were,  to  all 
human  appearances,  in  a  prosperous  condition  ;  bat  the}^  were 
restless  and  unhappy.  When  it  closed,  in  1865,  they  were 
neither  happy  nor  prosperous.  The  South  was  poor.  Her 
fields  had  been  neglected  ;  her  villages,  towns  and  cities  had 
been  desolated,  and  the  hearts  of  her  people  were  draped  in 
grief.  The  land  was  full  of  widows,  and  parents  were  without 
sons. 

For  four  long  3'ears  hideous  war  had  dipped  his  feet  in  the 
blood  of  the  slain,  and  gorged  his  cruel  eyes  on  the  mangled 
bodies  of  the  dead.  The  plow  was  beaten  into  a  sword,  and 
'the  pruning  hook  into  a  spear,  and  the  nation  learned  nothing 
but  war.  The  teacher  and  his  pupils  laid  aside  their  books, 
and  buckling  on  the  panopy  of  the  martial  field,  hastened  to 
the  bloody  conflict.  Schools,  academies  and  colleges  suspended 
.operation,  and  the  country  for  four  years  presented  the  appear- 


392  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ance  of  one  grand  drill  camp.  The  foundations  of  civil  society- 
were  upturned,  and  the  pursuits  of  domestic  life  languished 
and  died.  Even  the  beasts  of  the  field  felt  the  shock.  The 
sanctuarj'  of  God  was  invaded,  and  the  family  altar  torn  down. 
Iniquities  abounded,  and  the  love  of  many  grew  cold. 

Upon  nothing  was  the  deleterious  effects  of  the  war  more 
visible  than  upon  the  church  and  her  institutions.  The  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  good  news,  because  it  jiroclaims  glory  to 
God  and  peace  to  man.  To  his  blood-bought  people  the  Saviour 
bequeathed,  in  his  will  and  testament,  peace.  "  My  peace,"  he 
says,  "I  give  unto  you."  This  is  their  inheritance.  The  di- 
rect tendency  of  the  gospel  is  to  banish  war  and  establish  peace;, 
and  the  proper  effect  of  war  is  to  banish  the  gospel.  When, 
in  1861,  the  civil  war  began,  the  church  in  the  United  States 
was  apparently  in  a  flourishing  condition.  The  various  de- 
nominations were  exerting  over  the  masses  a  seeming  salutarj-, 
moral  and  religious  influence.  In  numerical  strength  the  church 
was  growing,  but  practical  godliness  was  certainly  not  one  of 
the  prominent  features  of  the  American  people.  In  fact,  the 
whole  nation  was  morally  diseased.  By  the  mass  of  the  peo- 
ple God's  law  was  disregarded,  and,  in  many  sections,  the 
church  had  been  thoroughly  Americanized,  and  made  to  con- 
form to  the  worldly  notions  of  the  multitude. 

The  civil  war  is  convincing  proof  that  the  American  people 
were  not  fully  under  the  power  of  Christianity. 

In  1861  the  Associate  Eeformed  Synod  of  the  South  was,_ 
like  other  Christian  denominations,  apparently  in  a  growing 
condition.  Erskine  College  had  been  endowed,  and  the  num- 
ber of  students  in  attendance  were  greater  than  at  any  previous- 
time.  The  number  of  candidates  for  the  ministry  was  annu^ 
ally  increasing  and  new  fields  of  usefulness  were  opening  up  in 
all  sections  of  the  broad  land.  When  the  war  ended  the  en- 
dowment funds  were  all,  or  nearly  all,  gone.  They  perished  in 
the  general  wreck.  At  an  early  period  during  the  war  the 
doors  of  the  college  were  closed.  The  young  men  of  the  conn- 
try  had  gone  to  the  tented  field.  The  theological  seminary  ex- 
perienced a  similar  fortune.     The  picture  was  sad. 

The  church  of  God,  however,  is  built  upon  a  sure  founda- 
tion. The  life  of  its  individual  members  is  hid  with  Christ, 
and  for  the  accomplishing  of  the  grand  purposes  of  redeeming. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  393 

love,  God  will  control  all  things,  even  the  wrath  of  the  wicked. 
It  is  not,  b}'  any  means,  uncomnion  that  God  brino-s  light  out 
of  darkness,  turns  the  counsel  of  an  Ahithophel  into  foolish- 
ness, and  makes  what  is  by  men  meant  for  evil  a  real  good. 

The  prosperity  of  the  different  branches  of  the  Christian 
church  in  the  South  since  the  close  of  the  civil  war  has  been 
equal  to  that  of  any  previous  period.  In  fact,  it  may  be  said 
that  Protestantism  lias  been  enjoying,  during  the  whole  period 
of  seventeen  years,  a  time  of  refreshing  from  the  presence  of 
the  Lord. 

This  is  certain!}-  true  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of 
the  South.  A  simple  statement  of  the  work  undertaken  and 
accomplished  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South 
since  April,  1865,  will  demonstrate  both  the  actual  and  com- 
parative prosperity  of  the  denomination.  The  present  condi- 
tion of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  cannot,  we 
suppose,  be  more  clearly  presented  to  view  than  by  an  exami- 
nation into  the  actual  conditions  of  its  various  institutions  and 
enterprises.  In  performing  this  task  we  begin  with  Erskixe 
College. 

That  the  present  condition  of  this  institution  may  be  under- 
stood, we  must  take  into  consideration  its  condition  at  the 
close  of  the  war.  One  short  sentence  is  sufficient  to  state  this. 
When  Gen.  Robert  E.  Lee  surrendered,  on  the  9th  of  April, 
1865,  ErsKine  College  was  dead.  Its  endowment  was  nearly 
all  swept  away,  and  the  people  to  whom  it  belonged  were,  in 
common  with  the  rest  of  their  fellow-citizens,  miserabh'  poor. 
The  buildings  and  libraries  belonging  to  the  college  and  to  the 
two  literary  societies  remained.     Everything  else  Avas  gone. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church  in  Septenfber,  1865,  measures  were  adopted  for 
the  revival  of  the  college.  The  feeling  prevailed  throughout 
the  church  that  it  was  necessary  to  the  successful  prosecution 
of  the  proper  work  of  the  denomination.  Without  at  once 
seeing  the  way  clear  toward  the  support  of  the  institution  in 
its  work,  on  account  of  the  general  exhaustion  of  the  country 
and  almost  universal  bankruptcy  of  the  citizens,  it  was  never- 
theless resolved  to  go  forward.  President  Patton  had  returned 
to  take  charge  of  another  institution,  and  Professor  Kennedy 
had  been  transferred  to  the  Due  West  Female  Colleo;e.     Rev. 


304  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Dr.  R.  C.  Grier,  who  had  for  a  time  been  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  Theological  Seminary,  was  again  made  President  of  the 
College,  and  the  other  members  of  the  faculty  continued  in 
their  respective  places.  The  facult}'  then  consisted  of  Rev.  Dr. 
R.  C.  Grier,  president,  and  Revs.  Drs.  J.  P.  Pressley  and  AV. 
R.  Hemi^hill,  Rev.  J.  N.  Yonng  and  J.  F.  Lee,  professors. 

This  faculty  continued  the  exercises  of  the  college  amidst 
the  difficulties  and  discouragements  that  met  every  enterprise  , 
"both  ecclesiastical  and  secular,  during  the  years  iminediateh' 
succeeding  the  war.  To  revive  the  spirit  of  education,  with 
all  the  memories  of  the  late  disastrous  struggle  fresh  in 
mind,  and  the  ^loverty  ot"  a  Avell-nigh  ruined  country,  was  an 
arduous  task.  How  far  the  task  was  perf  )rmed  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  college  must  reveal. 

To  place  the  matter  of  education  more  entirel}'  in  the  hands 
of  the  church,  the  faculty  of  the  college,  in  1867,  all  resigned. 
This  opened  the  way  for  a  new  organization.  At  the  meeting 
of  Synod  of  that  year  an  election,  was  entered  into  and  resulted 
<as  follows:  Rev.  R.  C.  Grier,  D.  D.,  President;  Rev.  J.  P. 
Pressley,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Greek  ;  Rev.  E.  L.  Patton,  Pro- 
fessor of  Latin  ;  Rev.  J.  ^N".  Young,  Professor  of  Mathematics 
and  iSTatural  Sciences,  and  William  Hood,  Professor  of  Belles 
Lettres  and  History.  Drs.  Grier  and  Pressley,  and  Rev.  Young 
proceeded  immediately  to  take  charge  of  the  departments  as- 
signed them  by  the  action  of  Sj'uod.  Prof.  Patton,  having  at 
tliis  time  charge  of  another  institution  of  learning,  declined 
his  appointment.  Prof.  Hood,  so  soon  as  his  term  of  service  as 
Treasurer  of  South  Carolina  expired,  took  the  position  assigned 
him.  At  the  next  annual  meeting  of  Sj'nod  the  vacancy  in  the 
department  of  Latin  was  filled  by  the  election  of  Prof  AV.  S. 
Lowry.  * 

"With  the  faculty  thus  organized  the  instruction  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  college  was  conducted  with  an  encouraging  de- 
gree of  success  until  interrupted  by  the  death  of  President 
Grier,  which  occurred  on  the  30th  day  of  Zslarch,  1871.  This 
event  was  recognized  as  a  heavy  blow  on  the  college.  Exalted 
liopes  were  cherished  of  the  rich  harvest  to  be  realized  from 
his  high  attainments  and  ripe  experience.  Dr.  Pressley  pre- 
sided during  the  remaining  portion  of  that  collegiate  year. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  395 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  the  same  year,  the  Rev.  "W. 
M.  Grier,  D.  D.,  son  of  the  deceased  president,  was  chosen  to 
fill  his  place.  Xo  other  change  occurred  in  the  ranks  of  the 
faculty  for  a  period  of  six  years,  when  they  were  again  invaded 
by  the  hand  of  death.  The  venerable  James  Pressle}'-,  D.  T>.* 
died  on  the  30th  day  of  March,  1877. 

At  the  next  ensuing  meeting  of  Synod,  Rev.  E.  L.  Patton, 
LL.  D.,  was  elected  to  fill  the  chair  made  vacant  by  the  death 
of  Dr.  Pressley,  in  the  department  of  Greek.  This  position  he 
accepted  and  immediately  took  charge  of  the  college  classes  in 
this  department,  the  duties  of  wliich  he  has  discharged  with 
marked  ability  and  eminent  success.  At  the  meeting  of  Synod 
in  1880,  Prof.  J.  X.  Young  tendered  to  S\'nod  the  resignation 
■of  his  professorship,  which  being  accepted,  he  was  requested  to 
continue  in  his  department  for  another  3'ear,  or  until  a  successor 
could  be  secured.  The  board  of  trustees  were  also  directed  to 
proceed  at  an  early  da}'  to  make  the  election  of  a  professor  for 
this  department.  In  obedience  to  this  order,  at  a  meeting 
called  soon  after,  John  H.  Miller,  of  Alabama,  was  chosen  ;  but 
he  not  wishing  to  enter  upon  the  dutiesof  his  ofiice  immediately. 
Prof.  Young  continued  in  the  position  until  July  1st,  1881.  On 
his  retiring  there  was  severed  the  last  link  that  bound  the  past 
to  the  present,  lie  alone  remained  of  the  original  faculty, 
having  been  associated  with  those  self-den3'ing  and  devoted 
men  with  whom  the  conception  of  the  college  originated,  and 
who  shared  freely  of  the  burden  and  heat  of  the  day  in  found- 
ing it,  and  promoting  its  early  growth,  and  who  has  at  all  times, 
during  an  extended  period  of  forty  years,  labored  for  its  wel- 
fare and  prosperity.  In  1882,  Prof.  Patton  tendered  his  resig- 
nation of  his  professorship  in  Erskine  College,  in  order  to  ac- 
cept the  chair  of  Ancient  Languages  in  South  Carolina  Uni- 
versity. 

The  present  (1882)  faculty  of  the  college  is  composed  of  the 
following  members  : 

Rev.  W.  M.  Grier,  D,  D.,  President  and  Professor  of  Moral 
and  Mental  Science;  William  Hood,  Professor  of  Belles  Lettres 
and  History;  William  S.  Lowrj',  Professor  of  Latin;  J.  H. 
Miller,  Professor  of  Mathematics  and  ISTatural  Science,  and  J. 
I.  McCain,  Professor  elect  of  Greek. 


396  HISTORY    OF    THE 

The  11  umber  of  students  in  Erskine  College  since  the  reor- 
ganization after  the  close  of  the  war  has  not  been  as  great  as 
during  the  period  preceding  the  war.  This  may  be  accounted 
for,  no  doubjt,  by  two  facts.  One  of  these  is  the  increase  of  de- 
'nominational  colleges  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina  and  adja- 
cent States ;  thus  in  the  matter  of  education  denominational 
lines  are  more  closely  drawn.  The  other  is  the  very  general 
want  of  means,  in  consequence  of  which  many  are  unable  to 
enjoy  the  advantages  of  a  liberal  education. 

FIXANCES  OF  THE  COLLEGE. 

The  effort  to  endow  the  college,  which  commenced  about 
1854,  and  in  which  Rev.  W.  R.  Hemphill,  D.  D.,  was  a  princi- 
pal actor,  assisted  by  Rev.  J.  C.  Chalmers  and  others,  was  so 
^ar  successful  that  in  1864  tiie  treasurer's  report  states  the  ag- 
gregate fund  at  seventy  five  thousand  dollars.  Of  this  sum 
about  fifty  thousand  consisted  of  Confederate  bonds  and  securi- 
ties and  personal  notes  given  by  subscribers  to  the  endowment 
fund.  The  former,  of  course,  were  worthless  at  the  close  of 
the  war,  and  the  latter,  being  some  twelve  thousand  dollars, 
yielded  but  a  trifling  amount  owing  to  the  general  inability  of 
the  subscribers  to  meet  their  obligations.  Thus  the  endow- 
ment fund  which  had  risen  to  an  amount  sufficient  to  meet  the 
ordinary  expenses  of  the  college  was,  by  these  losses  and  the 
failure  of  two  banks  in  which  tlie  college  owned  stock,  reduced 
to  an  available  fund  of  not  more  than  fifteen  thousand  dollars. 
On  a  portion  of  this  balance  of  tiie  endowment  fund  that  had 
escaped  tlie  general  wreck  there  was  the  accumulated  interest  of 
several  years.  This  accumulated  interest  furnished  valuable  aid 
in  sustaining  the  college  during  the  period  intervening  between 
September,  1865,  and  1869.  At  the  meeting  of  Synod  in  Sep- 
tember, 1867,  it  was  resolved,  on  certain  conditions,  to  raise  a 
temporary  endowment,  according  to  the  plan  recommended  by 
the  committee  on  the  college,  viz:       ♦ 

That  an  association  be  immediately  formed  of  two  hundred  or  more  persons, 
who  shall  each  agree  to  pay  twenty  dollars  annually  for  five  years;  every  mem- 
ber of  said  association  being  entitled  to  tuition  for  one  student  for  every  twenty 
dollars  so  paid.  *  *  *  This  scheme  shall  go  into  operation  so  soon  as  two 
hundred  names  shall  have  been  obtained,  the  tuition  to  be  enjoyed  as  the  money 
is  paid. 

For  the  prosecution  of  this  scheme  Dr.  Hemphill  was  put  in 
charse.     His  efforts   were  crowned  with   success.     Hence   the 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  397 

pecuniary  wants  of  the  college  for  the  five  years  immediately 
succeeding  September,  1867,  were  satisfied  Ijy  the  scheme  known 
as  the  '■'■  five  year  endowmrMt." 

With  the  termination  of  the  five  year  endowment  it  was  re- 
solved by  Synod  to  undertake  the  work  of  raising  an  endowment 
fund  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  by  installments  of  ten 
thousand  per  year  for  ten  years,  and  that  the  said  sum  should  be 
retained  and  perpetuated  as,  a  standing  fund,  the  interest  of 
Avhich  alone  was  to  be  used  in  the  current  expenses  of  the  college. 
It  is  due  to  truth  to  state  that  the  sum  contemplated  b}'  this 
resolution  was  not  fully  realized.  The  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  has  not  yet  been  reached,  yet  bj'  the  treasurer's  report 
to  the  Board  of  Trustees  at  the  last  annual  meeting,  the  fund 
presents  respectable  proportions — in  the  aggregate  seventy- 
eight  thousand  five  hundred  dollars.  Of  this  amount,  how- 
ever,  sixteen  thousand  six  hundred  dollars  consists  of  notes 
given  by  the  subscribers  to  the  endowment  fund,  and  are  yet 
to  be  collected.  Should  this  sum  be  collected  without  heavy 
loss,  the  pecuniary  su})p(:)rt  of  the  college  will,  by  judicial 
management,  be  assured. 

We  may  safely  regard  the  present  condition  and  prospects  of 
the  college  as  liopel'ui.  Though  not  rich  in  funds,  yet  possess- 
ing a  moderate  suppl}'.  Although  not  crowded  with  students, 
yet  having  enough  to  accomplish  an  important  work  for  the 
church  and  the  world. 

In  view  of  the  object  for  which  Erskine  College  was  founded 
and  for  which  it  has  been  sustained,  we  conclude  that  the  great 
want  is  a  more  full  recognition  of  the  church's  obligation,  not 
simply  to  contribute  of  her  money  when  needed,  l)ut  more 
es[)ecially  to  devote  her  sons,  that  the}'  nja}^  be  in  the  way  of 
training  for  the  service  of  God  in  the  gospel  ministry  or  other 
useful  occupations  among  the  educated. 

The  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod 
of  the  South  since  the  close  of  thq  war  may  also  be  learned  by 
a  review  of  its 

FOEEIGX   MISSIONS. 

The  efforts  of  the  Synod  in  its  attempt  to  engage  in  foreign 
missionarj^  labors  previous  to  the  civil  war  have  been  stated 
elsewhere.  They  need  not  be  repeated.  It  is  sufficient  to  state 
that  after  the  failure,  in  1853,  of  the  African  Mission,  the  sub- 


398  HISTORY    OF    THE 

ject  of  foreign  missions  ceased  for  a  number  of  years  to  be- 
considered  in  a  formal  way  b}^  the  Synod.  The  way  to^engage 
in  foreign  missions  seemed  to  be  blocked  by  the  providpuce  of 
God.  Immediately  prior  to  the  breaking  out  of  the  war,  the 
subject  was  again  revived.  The  war  came  on  and  we  hcai"  no 
more  of  the  missionary  spirit  until  1872,  at  which  time  the 
Synod  raised  a  committee,  whose  duty  it  was  to  ascertain  the 
amount  and  condition  of  the  Foreign  Missionary  Fund,  to  in- 
quire into  the  practicability  of  the  enterprise  and  to  call  out 
candidates.  That  committee  was  subsequently  erected  into  a 
board  of  foreign  missions. 

The  Synod,  at  its  next  meeting  (1873)  at  Mount  Zion,  Mis- 
souri, resolved,  if  possible,  and  that  without  delay,  to  thrust  a 
missionary  into  the  foreign  field;  and,  as  auxiliary  to  that  end, 
the  committee  were  instructed  to  address  a  letter  to  the 
churches  to  inform  them  of  the  purposes  of  Synod,  and  to 
elicit  in  them  an  evangelical  spirit.     This  order  was  obeyed. 

At  the  meeting  at  Hopewell,  Maury  count}^,  Tennessee  (1874), 
two  schemes  or  methods  of  conducting  the  mission  were  dis- 
cussed— the  cooperation  scheme  and  the  independent.  By  the 
first  it  was  proposed  to  cooperate  with  the  United  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Eg3q:)t — by  the  second,  to  select  an  entirely  new  field 
unoccupied  by  any  church.  The  first  was  adopted,  but  not 
without  an  invitation  by  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  to 
work  with  them.  Xcar  the  end  of  the  year  1874,  Miss  Mary 
E.  Galloway,  of  Due  West,  S.  C,  a  ladj'  of  piety  and  of  fine 
accomplishments,  offered  her  services  to  the  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions,  which  offer  was  promptly  accepted,  and  preparations 
were  forthwith  made  for  her  departure.  After  several  vale- 
dictor}^  meetings  were  held  at  Due  West  and  elsewhere,  she 
took  her  departure  from  home  and  friends  for  Egypt,  on  the 
28th  of  January,  1875,  via  IsTew  York,  Liverpool  and  the  over- 
land route  across  the  continent,  landing  at  Alexandria  early  in 
March.  Her  first  attention,  of  course,  was  directed  to  an  ac- 
quisition of  the  language  of  the  country  .(Arabic),  and  that 
necessitated  her  being  for  a  time  at  certain  localities,  such  as 
Alexandria,  Ramleh  and  Cairo.  Her  marriage  with  the  Rev. 
John  Giffen,  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Mission  in  Egypt,  the 
following  year,  brought  her  more  immediately  into  contact  Avith 
that  mission,  and  to  some  extent  fiicilitated  her  efforts  in  the 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  31IU 

missionary  work.  Having  good  linguistic  ability,  she  was  not 
long  in  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the  Arabic,  and  consequent- 
ly not  long  in  being  initiated  into  her  mission  work.  Her 
points  of  labor  were  Alexandria,  Ramleh,  Cairo,  Mansoura  and 
Osioot,  or  Assyoot,  but  chiefly  at  the  latter  place,  in  a  college 
of  the  United  Presbyterian  ^Mission. 

Having  broken  down  with  her  arduous  labors  and  the  de- 
bilitating effects  of  the  climate,  she  last  year,  1881,  accom- 
panied by  the  Rev-  John  Giffen,  resorted  to  the  north  of  Italy 
for  a  few-  months.  Jieing  somewdiat  improved,  she  returned  to 
Egypt,  but  did  -not  live  to  see  the  end  of  the  year.  She  died 
at  Cairo,  on  the  16th  of  October,  leaving  a  husband  and  three 
children.     So  much  for  Egyptian  mission. 

The  Synod  having  resolved,  in  1878,  to  establish  a  mission  in 
Mexico,  the  Rev.  Neill  E.  Pressley  offered  his  services,  which 
were  accepted.  After  a  correspondence  with  the  missionaries 
of  other  denominations  in  that  country  as  to  the  most  eligible 
points  for  establishing  missionary  stations,  the  board  despatch- 
ed Mr.  Pressley  and  family,  in  December,  1878,  to  the  city  of 
jMexico,  where  he  remained  some  ten  months  in  acquiring  a 
knowledge  of  the  Spanish  language.  In  concert  with  the  mis- 
sionary himself  the  board  selected  Tampico,  on  the  Gulf  coast, 
as  our  station,  to  which  Mr.  Presslc}^  repaired  in  December, 
1879,  where  he  yet  remains,  operating  at  first  under  many 
discouragements,  but  now  with  some  success. 

The  present  condition  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of 
the  South  may  be  safely  estimated  by  the  condition  of  the 

Theological  Seminary. 

Xearlj'  all  the  Christian  denominations  in  the  w^orld  regard 
a  theological  school  as  necessary  in  order  to  the  effective  ac- 
complishment of  their  work.  No  one  who  will  give  the  sub- 
ject a  moment's  serious  thought,  will  deny  that  some  training 
is  necessary  in  order  to  prepare  an  individual  for  the  efficient 
vrork  of  the  gospel  ministry.  The  individual  whom  we  may 
reasonably  expect  to  succeed  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel  must 
be  endowed  by  nature  with  certain  intellectual  abilities,  and 
those  abilities  must  be  cultivated  and  developed.  Without 
piety  and  the  call  of  God  to  the  work,  no  man  dare,  with  im- 
punity, engage  in  the  official  w^ork  of  preaching  the  gospel. 


400  HISTORY    OF    THE 

However  essential  piety  may  be  to  the  minister  of  the  gospel, 
this,  of  itself,  is  not  enough.  Xo  one  will  claim  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  every  pious  individual  to  administer  the  sacraments 
and  discharge  the  many  other  duties  which  none  deny  God  has 
assigned  to  ministers  of  the  gospel.  Such  a  theory  l)ears  the 
marks  of  glaring  absurdity  upon  its  face.  Piety  and  the  call 
of  God  to  the  work,  it  is  admitted,  are  absolute  prerequisites  to 
the  individual  who  would  engage  in  preaching  the  gospel.  In 
addition,  however,  to  this,  a  correct  and  extensive  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures  and  of  human  nature  are  necessary.  This 
knowledge  can  be  acquired  only  by  long  and  close  study  and 
accurate  observation.  Xo  man  is  born  with  an  intuitive 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures.  God  gives  His  people  the  illumi- 
nation of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  the  illumination  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  goes  no  farther  tlian  the  ^Vord  of  God.  Xo  new  facts 
are  revealed  by  the  S])irit.  The  truths  revealed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures are,  by  the  illuminating  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
the  mind,  disclosed  and  made  known.  This  revelation,  how- 
ever, comes  not  miraculously^,  but  in  the  use  of  the  means  of 
<Tivine  appointment.  Such  being  the  case,  some  human  train- 
ing is  necessary  in  order  to  be  able  to  discharge  successfully 
and  with  the  divine  approbation  the  official  work  of  a  minister 
of  the  gospel. 

AVith  such  convictions  of  duty  the  fathers  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  in  Scotland,  of  the  Associate  Presbyter}-,  of  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod,  and  of  the  Reformed  Synod  in 
America  each  set  about  at  an  early  period  to  found,  equip  and 
maintain  a  theological  seminary.  The  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  South  followed  their  example  in  this  particular. 
Drs.  John  Hemphill  and  John  T.  Presslev  were  the  first  pro- 
fessors. After  the  death  of  the  former  and  removal  of  the  lat- 
ter, the  work  of  training  candidates  for  the  gospel  ministry 
was  entrusted,  in  part,  b}'  the  presbyteries  to  pastors.  Those 
not  studying  under  their  pastors  repaired  generally  to  the  theo- 
logical seminaries  of  the  Xortli  and  Xorthwest. 

When  Erskine  College  was  founded,  the  theological  seminary 
was  removed  to  Due  West.  Dr.  E.  E.  Pressley  was  elected 
President  of  the  College  and  Professor  of  Theology ;  and  al- 
though he  resigned  the  presidency  of  the  college  in  184G,  his 
connection  with  the  tlieological  seminary  continued  until  the 
time  of  his  death,  in  1860. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  401 

In  1840,  Dr.  James  F.  Pressley  was  elected  Professor  of  Lan- 
guages in  Erskine  College,  and  "  to  take  part  in  the  theological 
■department."  In  1847,  Dr.  R.  C.  Grier  was  elected  President 
■of  Erskine  College,  and,  in  1848,  Dr.  AY.  P.  Hemphill  was 
chosen  Professor  of  the  Latin  Language. 

The  various  labors  and  duties  of  the  theological  professors 
were  performed  by  these  men,  in  addition  to  their  college  du- 
ties, from  the  time  of  their  connection  with  Erskine  College 
until  everything  was  thrown  into  confusion  by  the  war.  Dr. 
E.  E.  Pressley  was  Professor  of  Hebrew;  Dr.  James  P.  Press- 
ley  was  Professor  of  Didactic  and  Polemic  Theoloi^y ;  Dr.  P.  C. 
Grier  was  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  and  Criticism,  and 
Dr.  W.  R.  Hemphill  was  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

When,  after  the  close  of  the  war,  Erskine  College  resumed 
operation,  the  theological  seminary  was  revived,  and  continued 
to  do  its  work  after  the  same  general  plan  which  had  been 
adopted  many  years  hcfore. 

The  number  of  students  for  a  number  of  j'ears  was  small. 
This  was  not  strange. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Synod,  in  1869,  the  Committee  on 
the  Theological  Seminary  made  the  following  recommendation, 
which  was  adopted,  viz. : 

"  That  Dr.  R.  C.  Grier  and  James  P.  Pressley  devote  a  portion  of  their  labors 
to  the  theological  department,  as  formerly;  and  that  Dr.  James  Boyce  be  elected 
permanent  professor,  and  that  they  divide  the  labors  among  themselves  for  the 
present. 

It  was  not  the  will  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  that  this  ar- 
ransjement,  wise  and  prudent  as  it  apparently  was,  should  be 
of  long  continuation.  Death  invaded  the  faculty,  and  in  less 
than  ten  years  Dr.  Boyce  was  left  alone. 

The  venerable  Dr.  E.  E.  Pressley  died  in  1860.  He  was  not 
spared  to  see  the  two  institutions — Erskine  College  and  the 
Theological  Seminary — which  he  assisted  in  founding,  and  for 
whose  growth  and  prosperity  he  labored  for  more  than  a  quar- 
ter of  a  century,  torn  to  pieces  by  the  bloody  hand  of  war. 
Drs.  James  P.  Pressley  and  R.  C.  Grier  were  spared  to  see  deso- 
lation sweep  over  all  the  institutions  of  both  Church  and  State, 
:and  then  to  see  the  return  of  peace.     But  in  1871,  the  Associate 


402  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  was  called  to  mourn  the  loss  of 
Dr.  Grier,  and  in  1877,  Dr.  J.  P.  Pressley  was  translated  from 
the  church  militant  to  the  church  triumphant. 

Dr.  Grier  was  in  the  prime  of  life,  and  in  the  midst  of  great 
usefulness ;  Dr.  Pressley  was  full  of  years  and  worn  out  with 
labors. 

After  the  death  of  Drs.  Grier  and  Pressley,  Drs.  W.  M. 
Grier  and  Revs.  E.  L.  Patton  and  W.  L.  Pressley  shared  with 
Dr.  Boyce  thelaboi-s  of  the  Theological  Seminary.  Such  is  the 
present  arrangement. 

There  is  no  more  correct  way  to  judge  of  the  intrinsic  worth 
of  any  institution  than  by  the  results  which  it  has  accom- 
plished. If  we  estimate  the  worth  of  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  by  what  it 
has  done  and  is  doing,  it  will  compare  favorably  with  any 
similar  institution  in  the  land.  It  is  true  there  is  no  massive 
structure  which  is  called  the  Seminary  building;  there  is  no 
library  with  its  several  hundred  thousand  volumes ;  there  are  not 
professors'  houses  richly  furnished,  but  there  is  everything  that 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  acquiring  a  correct  and  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures.  It  may  be  said  without  boasting 
that  the  young  men  who  have  graduated  from  Erskine  College 
and  studied  theology  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Due  West 
since  the  close  of  the  war,  will  compare  favorably  with  those 
who  have  been  educated  in  other  literary  colleges  and  theologi- 
cal seminaries. 

About  forty  years  ago  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
South  began  the  publication  of  a  religious  periodical — The 
Christian  Magazine  of  the  South.  The  first  number  was  issued 
from  the  press  in  January,  1843.  After  a  successful  career  of 
nine  years  the  Christian  Magazine  and  Erskine  Mi'scellang, 
which  was  begun  in  1850,  were  consolidated.  After  a  few 
3^ears  the  name  Erskine  Miscellany  was  exchanged  for  '•  Tne 
Due  West  Telescope."  During  the  war  the  Telescope,  forced  by 
surrounding  circumstances,  suspended  publication.  Shortl}^ 
after  the  restoration  of  peace,  its  publication  was  resumed  with 
the  more  significant  and  appropriate  name,  '•''Associate  lieformed 
Presbyterian"     The  Christian  Magazine  of  the  South,  during  its 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  403 

existence,  and  the  Erskine  Miscellany ^  after  the  consolidation  of 
the  two  publications,  have  ever  been  regarded  as  the  organs  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South. 

The  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian  is  simply  a  continuation 
of  the  Due  West  Telescope^  and  the  Due  West  Telescope  was  sim- 
ply a  continuation  of  the  Erskine  Miscellany. 

Dr.  James  Boyce,  as  editor  and  proprietor,  began  the  pub- 
lication of  the  Christian  Magazine  of  the  South  in  January^ 
1843,  and  continued  in  that  capacity,  without  interruption,  for 
a  period  of  nine  years  ;  the  last  number  being  issued  from  the 
press  in  December,  1851. 

Dr.  John  I.  Bonner  was  connected  with  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  from  the  time  of  its  founding  until  the 
time  of  his  death,  in  April,  1881.  At  lirst  there  were  asso- 
ciated with  him  Drs.  J.  0.  Lindsay  and  W.  R.  Hemphill,  but 
for  many  years  Dr.  Bonner  was  sole  editor  and  proprietor,  and 
under  liis  immediate  supervision  tlie  paper  was  published. 

After  his  death  Rev.  Dr.  W.  M.  Grier  and  Mr.  J.  B.  Bonner 

became  proprietors  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian — Dr. 
Grier  being  editor  in  connection  with  Dr.  Boyce  and  Professor 
Patton  as  associate  editors.  The  paper  is  now  (1882)  in  its  thir- 
tieth year,  having  suspended  publication  during  and  imme- 
diately after  the  close  of  the  war  for  about  two  years. 

DUE  WEST  FEMALE    COLLEGE. 

About  the  year  1859,  or  perhaps  earlier,  a  few  individuals  in 
and  near  the  village  of  Due  West,  and  generally  in  connection 
with  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  conceived  the  idea  of 
founding  an  institution  in  which  females  might  be  thoroughly 
educated.  Sufficient  funds  were  raised,  and  in  the  fall  of  1859 
the  organization  was  completed.  The  first  session  o^Dcned  on 
the  second  Monday  of  January,  1860,  and  in  December  of  the 
same  year  a  charter  was  obtained.  The  name  Due  West  Fe- 
male College  was  given  it. 

Its  first  faculty  consisted  of  the  following  persons  :  Rev.  J. 
I.  Bonner,  D.  D.,  president ;  Rev.  J.  Galloway,  Miss  E.  Mc- 
Querns,  and  Miss  Sallie  McBride. 


404  HISTORY    OF    THE 

Dr.  Bonner  remained  in  the  position  of  president  until  his 
death  in  April,  1881.  Miss  McQuerns  is  still  connected  with 
the  college,  though  she  has  passed  her  four-score  years. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  college  has  been  in  existence 
more  tlian  twenty  years.  From  the  very  first  day  of  its  life  it 
has  aimed  to  do  good,  faithful  work,  and  the  public  apprecia- 
tion of  the  institution,  as  measured  by  its  full  attendance,  is 
the  very  best  evidence  of  its  success  in  carr3'ing  out  this,  the 
original  plan  and  purpose  of  its  founders. 

The  college  has  no  denominational  connection  whatsoever. 
It  is  the  property  of  a  few  individuals  who  have  put  their 
means  into  it,  not  so  much  for  the  pecuniary  reward  which 
they  may  reap  from  tlie  investment,  but  as  meeting  a  felt  want 
and  as  an  agency  for  good  in  the  general  elevation  and  cultiva- 
tion of  societ}'. 

The  institution  has  no  endowment,  but  lives  from  its  tuition 
charges.  lis  course  of  study  has  been  gradually  enlarged  until 
now  it  embraces  all  those  branches  included  in  institutions  of 
the  first  rank.  The  college  has  been  particularly  fortunate  in 
its  teachers.  These  iiave  been  earnest,  capable  and  efficient, 
and  tlioroughly  devoted  to  their  work. 

The  college  building  is  of  brick,  large  and  commodious.  The 
grounds  are  tastefully  laid  off  in  walks,  and  are  every  way  in- 
viting. 

The  patronage  of  the  institution  has  embraced  every  State 
from  Ohio  to  Texas,  though  it  is  mainly  confined  to  four  or 
live  of  the  South  Atlantic  States. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  the  college  has  received  hand- 
some gifts  from  the  late  Col.  D.  O.  Hawthorne,  of  Abbeville 
county,  S.  C,  and  the  late  Mrs.  Ann  I.  "Wallace,  of  Kentucky. 
Prof.  Frederick  Smith,  who  died  in  the  service  of  the  institu- 
tion as  music  teacher,  willed  to  the  college  some  twelve  hundred 
dollars  of  his  estate — eleven  hundred  dollars  of  this  was  to  bo 
a  permanent  fund,  the  interest  of  which  only  was  to  be  used. 

During  the  twenty-two  years'  life  of  the  college  it  has  sent 
out  over  two  hundred  graduates. 

It  would  be  a  great  omission  from  this  brief  statement  if 
there  were  no  special  mention  of  the  work  of  Dr.  Bonner  in 
promoting  the  success  of  the  college.     He  gave  to  it  his  un- 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  405 

wearied  energ}',  his  great  business  tact  and  his  superior  admin- 
istrative ability.  He  made  the  college  what  it  is.  During  the 
long  period  of  his  presidency  he  was  ever  devising  new  schemes 
for  its  steady  growth  and  its  wider  usefulness.  When  called 
away  from  his  earthly  labors  he  left  the  institute  established 
in  public  favor  and  with  every  promise  of  continued  success. 

The  faculty  at  ];)resent  (1882)  consists  of  the  following  per- 
sons : 

President — Mr.  J.  1\  Kennedy,  A.  M. 

Vice-PrincqKds — Miss  Kate  P.  Kennedy,  Mrs.  L.  M.  Bonner. 

Teachers — Miss  E.  McQuerns,  Miss  J.  V.  Le  Gal,  Miss  L.  J. 
Galloway,  Miss  S  L.  Miller,  Miss  E.  L.  Pressley,  Miss  M.  E. 
Hood. 


406  HISTORY    OF    THE 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

CONCLUDING  CHAPTER— Faith  and  Practice  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church — Denominational  Standards — The  Multitude  Always  Wrong — The 
Constitution  of  the  Church  is  the  Bible — Men  Do  Not  Agree  in  its  Interpre- 
tation— Creeds  Necessary  in  Order  that  there  may  be  Harmony — Divisions 
in  the  Church  to  be  Deplored — Christian  Denominations  Duty  Bound  to  Pub- 
lish their  Creeds — Power  of  Ecclesiastical  Courts — Administrative  not  Legis- 
lative Bodies — Dr.  Samuel  Miller  Quoted — Creed  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church — Of  the  Synod  of  the  South — Judicial  Acts  Passed  by  the  Old  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod — These  Acts  Never  Repealed — Still  in  Force  in  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South — These  Acts  Endorsed  by  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  in  1848— Tract  of  1871  Quoted—Psalmo- 
dy and  Communion  the  Distinctive  Features  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  South. 

In  this  concluding  chapter  it  is  proposed  to  give  a  plain 
statement  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  of  the  South.  This  we  conceive  to  be  due  to  the  Synod 
itself,  to  the  Church  universal,  to  those  branches  of  the  Church 
universal  which  in  doctrine,  form  of  government  and  mode  of 
worship,  closely  resemble  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the 
South,  and  such  information,  we  suppose,  is  due  to  the  world. 

In  judging  of  the  orthodox}^  of  a  Christian  denomination 
we  are  laid  under  the  necessity  of  examining  into  the  faith 
and  practice  of  that  denomination  as  contained  in  its  standards 
and  various  judicial  testimonies.  By  these  it  must  be  tried. 
Large  numbers  give  a  Christian  denomination  apparent  strength 
and  influence,  but  unfortunately,  for  near  six  thousand  years 
the  multitude  of  the  human  family  have  ever  embraced  a  false 
creed,  and  spent  their  days  in  practising  rites  and  ceremonies 
interdicted  by  nature  and  condemned  by  God's  "Word. 

The  constitution  of  every  Christian  denomination  undoubt- 
edly is  the  Bible.  All  those  who  reject  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  thrust  themselves  beyond  the  pale  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  may  be  classed  with  pagans.  There  is,  however, 
such  a  thing  as  adopting  in  theory  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  at  the  same  time  giving  it  such  interpreta- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  401 

tioiis  ns  strip  it  of  all  its  heavenly  authority.  Such  being  the 
€ase,  wise  and  good  men  for  many  centuries  have  regarded 
■creeds  and  confessions  as  a  necessity.  In  other  words,  that 
there  may  be  harmony  in  doctrine  and  uniformity  in  worship, 
the  great  majority  of  the  most  devout  Christians  regard  the 
adoption  of  a  creed  formulated  by  men  as  essential.  It  is  not 
claimed  for  these  creeds  or  confessions,  that  they  are  Scripture, 
but  that  they  are  an  exhibition  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  the 
Scriptures.  They  are  summaries  of  divine  trutli  expressed  in 
human  language,  and  are  regarded  b}^  those  adopting  them  as 
being  agreeable  to  and  founded  upon  the  Word  of  God. 

All  true  Christians  in  ever}'  part  of  tlie  world  adopt  the  Bible 
as  the  "Word  of  God  and  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  all 
true  Christians  do  not  agree  in  their  interpretations  of  the  Bible. 
They  do  not  agree  as  to  what  the  Bible  does  teach  on  some 
important  doctrines  and  practices.  In  these  disagreements 
they  are,  we  may  suppose,  honest,  but  this  does  not  prevent 
the  want  of  harmony.  All  Christians  agree  that  the  Bible 
teaches  that  baptism  is  one  of  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament Church,  but  there  is  great  disagreement  among  Chris- 
tians as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  ordinance  of  baptism  shall 
be  administered,  and  to  whom  it  shall  be  administered.  Ana- 
l)aptists  and  pedo-Baptists  cannot  worship  together  statedly 
and  organically  in  harmony.  The  same  may  be  affirmed  of 
Calvinists,  Arminians,  Pelagians,  Arians  and  Socinians.  There 
are  many  things  which  prevent  these  from  being  organically 
■one.  Their  separation  ma}'  be  and  is  to  be  deplored,  but  their 
union  would  convert  the  visil)le  church  into  a  Babel  of  intol- 
erable confusion.  That  truth  may  be  preserved  and  propa- 
gated and  error  suppressed,  creeds  and  confessions  are  in  the 
present  condition  of  the  church  necessary.  Not  only  so,  but  it 
is  the  duty  of  every  Christian  denomination  to  publish  to  the 
world  its  creed.  This  is  a  duty  which  each  denomination  owes 
to  the  church  militant,  and  it  is  a  duty  that  it  especially  owes 
to  those  over  whom  God,  in  His  holy  providence,  has  given  it 
oversight.  It  must,  however,  be  kept  steadily  in  mind  that 
these  creeds  and  confessions  are  not  in  themselves  laws  or  legis- 
lative enactments.  This  they  do  not  claim  to  be.  Ecclesias- 
tical courts,  no  matter  by  what  names  they  may  be  called,  are 
not  legislative  bodies.     They  have  no  authority  to  make  laws; 


408  HISTORY    OF    THE 

their  powers  and  prerogatives  are  only  administrative.  The 
Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone,  is  the  law  bookof  the  church.  "A 
Creed  or  Confession  of  Faith,"  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Samuel 
Miller,  of  Princeton,  "is  an  exhibition  in  human  language  of 
those  great  doctrines  which  are  believed  by  the  framers  of  it 
to  be  taught  in  the  H0I3"  Scriptures." 

When  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  was  organized,  in  1782^ 
it  declared  that  it  adopted  as  its  creed  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  except  certain  sections  which  were  reserved 
for  future  consideration.  These  sections  were  considered,, 
amended  and,  in  1799,  adopted.  Previous,  however,  to  this 
time  a  number  of  acts  were  passed  b}'  the  Synod.  These  acts 
were  not  repealed  on  the  adoption,  in  1799,  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  but  remained  in  full  force. 

The  principal  acts  passed  by  the  Old  Associate  Reformed 
Synod  were  the  following,  viz:  (1.)  An  Act  concerning  Judi- 
cial Testimonies  ;  (2.)  An  Act  to  amend  the  Constitution  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Synod :  (3.)  An  Act  concerning  the 
religious  connections  of  the  Synod;  (4.)  An  Act  concerning 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  (5.)  An  Act 
concerning  the  covenant  of  works,  in  the  relation  it  hatli  to 
unbelievers  ;  (6.)  An  Act  concerning  the  frequent  administra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  (7.)  An  Act  concerning  Psalmody; 
(8.)  An  Act  concerning  faith  and  justification;  (9.)  An  Act 
concerning  the  kingl}-  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

These  act  were  never  repealed,  but  remained  a  part  of  the 
creed  of  the  Old  Associate  Reformed  Synod  during  its  exist- 
ence. They  were  retained  by  the  General  S3'nod,  and  in  1848, 
they  were,  by  the  authority  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod, 
republished  with  this  endorsement  and  explanation  : 

"We  do  not  consider  these  testimonies  as  new  articles  of  our  Confession; 
but  are  elucidations,  and  more  full  declarations  of  some  doctrines  contained  in 
our  received  standards,  and  a  testimony  against  the  contrary  errors.  These  be- 
ing judicial  decisions,  will  serve  also  to  guide  the  judgment  in  matters  of  con- 
troversy." 

In  1871  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South,  after- 
mature  deliberation,  adopted  the  following  : 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  400 

SUMMARY  OF  DOCTEIXES. 

I.  There  is  a  God,  the  Maker  and  Upholder  of  all  things,  the  Moral  Governor 
and  Judge  of  the  world. 

II.  Man  is  a  dependent  creature,  endued  with  a  rational  and  immortal  soul. 
and  it  is  his  highest  honor  and  happiness,  as  well  as  his  bounden  duty,  to  know 
God,  to  love,  honor  and  obey  Him  supremely,  and  so  make  His  glory  his  chief 
end.  Though  at  first  created  holy  and  happy,  he  is  now  a  fallen  creature,  and 
in  need  of  salvation. 

III.  The  light  of  nature  is  iusuflScient  to  give  man  that  knowledge  of  God  and 
of  His  will,  which  is  necessary  to  salvation. 

IV.  God  has  given  us  a  revelation  of  His  mind  and  will,  as  we  need,  in  the 
ScBiPTUKES  OF  THE  Old  AND  New  TESTAMENTS,  which  are  the  word  of  God,  fully 
inspired,  the  only,  the  perfect  and  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  duty,  from  which 
nothing  must  be  taken,  and  to  which  nothing  must  be  added,  either  under  pre- 
text of  tradition  or  of  new  revelation. 

The  Apocrypha  is  no  part  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

We  are  to  believe  and  obey  the  Scriptures,  simply  because  they  are  the  word 
of  God.  Human  reason  is  to  be  employed  in  tracing  their  evidence,  and  in  in- 
terpreting and  applying  them. 

It  is  the  right  and  duty  of  all  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and  therefore  they  are  to 
be  translated  into  the  vernacular  tongues  of  all  nations. 

All  controversies  in  religion  are  to  be  determined  by  an  appeal  to  the  Scrip- 
tures; and  by  them  are  all  religious  doctrines  and  usages  to  be  tried. 

V.  There  is  One  only  Living  and  True  God;  a  pure,  self -existent  and  invisi- 
ble spirit,  without  body,  parts  or  i^assions,  infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable  in 
His  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth;  past  finding 
out,  everywhere  present,  knowing  all  things,  searching  all  hearts,  almighty,  all- 
sufficient,  absolutely  sovereign,  without  failure  accomplishing  His  will;  perfect- 
ly blessed,  infinitely  glorious,  loving  righteousness  and  hating  iniquity;  delight- 
ing in  mercy,  and  the  great  rewarder  of  all  who  diligently  seek  Him;  yet  inca- 
pable of  acquitting  the  wicked. 

VI.  In  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there  are  thbee  pebsons.  the  Father,  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit;  the  same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power  and  glory,  yet 
distinguished  by  their  peculiar  names,  their  relations  to  one  another,  and  their 
order  of  operation,  especially  in  the  redemption  of  man — the  Father  purposing, 
the  Son  procuring,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  applying  salvation. 

VII.  God  did  from  all  eternity  of  his  sovereign  pleasure,  and  by  the  most  wise 
and  holy  counsel  of  His  own  will,  unchangeably  ordain  all  things  that  come  to 
pass;  yet  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  be  the  author  of  sin,  nor  yet  do  violence  to 
the  will  of  His  creatures,  who  all  act  without  constraint  and  according  to  their 
own  free  choice.  Nor  does  His  decree  set  aside,  but  rather  establishes,  the  use  of 
means  as  they  are  fixed  as  well  as  the  end.  Nor  does  it  interfere  with  the  im- 
partial distribution  of  rewards  and .  punishments,  inasmuch  as  it  contemplates 
that  as  every  man  acts  voluntarily  ,  so  he  shall  be  rewarded  according  to  his 
works.  In  other  words,  God  from  eternity,  in  perfect  wisdom  and  righteous  ■ 
ness,  and  of  His  own  sovereign  accord,  fixed  the  plan  of  that  universe  of  things,. 


410  HISTORY    OF    THE 

which,  under  Him,  who  worketh  all  thiagr.  after  the  counsel  of  Hir.  own  will, 
comes  into  being,  determining  to  effect  by  His  own  positive  agency  what  He 
does  actually  thus  effect,  and  to  permit  what  He  actually  does  permit,  and  to 
limit  and  overrule  just  as  He  does  actually  limit  and  overrule.  He  is  the  effi- 
cient cause  of  good  only;  evil  He  permit:-.,  limits  and  overrules  for  good;  and 
His  agency  in  all  this  is  according  to  an  eternal  plan  freely  conceived  in  His  own 
mind,  and  that  plan  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  voluntary  agency  of  ra- 
tional creatures,  the  operation  of  second  causes,  and  the  principle.?  of  impartial 
justice. 

God's  decree  fixes  the  eternal  destiny  of  angels  and  men,  but  on  principles 
strictly  just  and  benevolent.  Good  angels  are  predestinated  to  life,  evil  angels 
to  destruction.  A  part  of  our  apostate  race  are.  of  the  riches  of  God's  grace, 
predestinated  to  obtain  life  eternal  through  the  mediation  of  Christ;  while  the 
rest  ai-e,  for  their  sin.  predestinated  most  justlj-.  as  all  might  have  been,  to  ever- 
lasting death. 

VIII.  Agreeably  to  His  eternal  plan.  God  did  out  of  nothing,  by  His  almighty 
powei'.  CREATE  all  things,  very  good,  and  angels  and  men  holy  and  happy;  and 
agreeably  to  the  same  plan  does,  in  a  most  holy,  wise  and  powerful  manner,  up- 
hold AND  GOVEBN  all  things:  so  that  nothing  happens  by  chance,  or  without  the 
appointment  or  permission,  or  independent  of  the  control  of  our  heavenly 
Father. 

IX.  Wiien  God  had  created  the  first  man.  He  entered  into  a  covenant  with 
him.  conmionly  called  the  Covenant  of  Woeks.  in  which  He  generously  prom- 
ised life,  not  only  to  him,  but  to  all  his  posterity  with  him,  on  condition  of  his 
perfect  obedience,  at  the  same  time  forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  on  pain  of  death. 

Adam  being  a  perfect  and  mature  man,  was  most  fit  to  be  our  representative; 
and  had  he  obeyed,  our  happiness  would  have  been  secured.  The  condition  was 
easy,  and  the  prize  momentous:  but  he.  being  left  to  his  liberty,  yielded  to  the 
temptation  of  Satan  and  disobeyed  God;  and,  being  their  progenitor  and  repre- 
sentative, involved  the  whole  race  of  mankind  along  with  himself  in  condemna- 
tion and  ruin. 

X.  In  consequence  of  this  sad  fall,  all  men  are  born  under  the  curse,  with  un- 
holy and  depraved  natures,  prone  to  sin.  into  which  they  run  as  soon  as  they  be 
gin  to  act.  subject  to  the  wrath  of  God.  to  trouble,  afliiction  and  death,  and  en 
posed  to  endless  jierdition. 

XI.  Thus  fallen,  we  are  unable  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God  for  our  sin,  and 
being  whoUy  disinclined,  are  utterly  unable  to  turn  truly  and  heartily  from  sin 
to  God:  but  are  "dead  in  trespasses  and  sins." 

XII.  God,  from  all  eternity,  foreseeing  our  sin  and  misery,  when  He  might 
have  left  us  all  to  perish,  did  of  His  own  free  grace,  determine  to  save  a  count 
less,  yet  definite  numbar  of  our  fallen  race,  chosen  out  of  all  ages  and  nations: 
and  for  this  purpose  did  enter  into  a  covenant  of  grace  with  His  Only -begotten 
Son,  appointed  to  be  their  Redeemer,  in  which  He  gave  them  to  Him.  that  on 
condition  of  His  assuming  their  nature,  and  in  it  fulfilling  the  precept  and  en- 
during the  penalty  of  the  violated  law  in  their  room.  He  might  give  unto  them 
■eternal  life. 


ASSOCIATE   PRESBYTERY.  411 

XIII.  In  accordance  with  this  arrangement,  the  Etebnal  Son  of  God  be- 
came Man,  by  taking  to  himself  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul — not  by 
the  law  of  natural  descent  from  Adam,  but  conceived  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  therefore  born  without  sin;  and  so 
our  Redeemer,  the  Loed  Jesus  Chkist,  is,  and  forever  continues  to  be,  both 
truly  God  and  truly  man,  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person — the  Mediator 
between  God  and  men ;  our  Prophet  to  teach  us  by  His  word  and  Spirit,  the  will 
of  God  for  our  salvation ;  our  Priest  to  satisfy  Divine  Justice  for  our  sins  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Himself,  and  to  make  intercession  for  us;  and  our  King  to  subdue 
us  to  Himself,  to  govern  us  by  His  laws  and  the  influence  of  His  grace,  and  to 
save  us  from  all  our  enemies. 

XIV.  Having  assumed  human  nature,  our  Redeemer  did  in  it  obey,  suffer  and 
die  IN  the  boom  of  sinful  men  as  the  surety  of  His  elect,  for  the  purpose  of  sat- 
isfying Divine  Justice  for  their  sins,  and  thereby  securing  their  salvation. 

XV.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  surety  of  sinners,  not  only  endured  the 
penalty,  but  also  obeyed  the  precept  of  the  broken  law  in  the  room  of  His  peo- 
ple. His  suEETT  eighteousness  consists  not  only  of  His  sufferings  and  death, 
but  also  of  His  obedience.  The  former  founds  our  release  from  punishment, 
the  lattei-  our  title  to  life. 

This  righteousness  is  the  only  ground  of  the  sinner's  justification  before  God. 
The  satiiifaction  of  Christ,  being  that  of  an  Infinite  Person,  has  infinite  value 
and  efficacy,  so  that  the  chief  of  sinners  can  be  pardoned  and  saved  through 
Him. 

XVI.  This  righteousness  of  Christ  is,  by  the  commandment  of  God  oar 
Saviour,  to  be  proclaimed  and  offered  in  the  Gospel  to  all,  with  the  assurance 
that  whosoever  beUeveth  shall  be  saved ;  and  this  offer  is  a  sure  warrant  to  every 

.  sinner  to  accept  Christ  as  his  Saviour. 

XVII.  Justifying  faith  is  receiving  and  resting  on  this  offered  righteousness 
•  of  Christ,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  merit  of  our  own.  as  the  only  ground  of  pardon 

and  acceptance  with  God;  and  this  faith  justifies  not  through  anything  merito- 
rious in  itself,  but  only  inasmuch  as  by  it  we  come  to  possess  that  offered  right- 
eousness which  is  imputed  to  every  believer.  "  God  imputeth  righteousness 
without  works."  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one 
that  believeth." 

XVIII.  All  believers  are  justified,  and  they  only. — John  iii:  35. 

XIX.  This  faith  is  the  gift  of  god.  That  same  Jesus  who  died  for  sinners 
and  rose  again,  is  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour  to  give  repentance  and  the  re- 

:  mission  of  sins.  For  this  purpose.  He  has  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  Spirit,  by  means  of  the  law.  convinces  us  of  our  sin  and  misery,  and  by 
■means  of  the  Gospel  enlightens  our  minds  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ;  and  by 
His  gracious  power  as  the  Sjjirit  of  life  in  Christ.  Jesus,  quickens  our  dead  souls, 
renews  our  wills,  and  persuades  and  enables  us  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ  as  He  is 
offered  to  us  in  the  Gospel.  Without  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit,  there  is 
no  saving  faith;  no  man  is  a  true  believer  till  he  is  a  new  creature.  "The  nat- 
nral  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God."  "Ye  must  be  born 
again." 

XX.  True  believers  are  not  only  justified,  but  adopted  into  the  family  of  God, 
-in  a  peculiar  sense  His  children.  "  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ." 


412  HISTORY    OF    THE 

XXI.  They  are  also  sanctified  by  His  Spirit;  who  carrying  on  the  good  and 
holy  work  begun  in  their  regeneration,  continues  to  renew  them  more  and  more 
after  the  image  of  God,  so  that  they  are  enabled  to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto 
righteousness.  That  faith  which  enriches  them  with  the  merits  of  Christ,  unites- 
them  to  Him  also  as  their  living  Head  and  source  of  spiritual  influences,  and  is 
itself  a  sanctifying  principle,  working  by  love,  purifying  the  heart  and  over- 
coming the  world,  producing  sorrow  for  and  hatred  of  sin,  and  leading  the  soul 
to  delight  in  the  law  of  God.  Renouncing  all  merit  of  works,  the  believer  will, 
nevertheless,  be  fruitful  in  good  works;  but  his  will  be  a  new  obedience,  not 
yielded  from  selfishness  and  slavish  fear,  or  mercenary  hope,  but  flowing  from 
the  generous  promptings  of  gratitude  and  love,  and  in  joyful  hope  of  life  eter- 
nal as  the  gift  of  God,  through  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 

XXII.  From  our  justification,  adoption  and  sanctification  flow  peace  of  con- 
science, assurance  of  God's  love,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  so  that  the  religion 
of  the  Saviour,  when  His  grace  and  love  are  received  into  the  heart,  is  pleasant, 
peaceful,  and  joyous.     His  yoke  is  easy,  and  His  burden  is  light. 

XXIII.  The  immutability  of  God's  love,  the  stability  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
the  perfection  of  Christ's  merits,  the  prevalence  of  His  intercession,  the  almighty 
power  and  grace  of  the  Spirit  as  the  Sanctifier,  and  the  sure  promises  of  God  in 
Jesus  Christ,  afford  a  sure  guarantee,  that  all  true  believers  shall  pebsevebe  and 
grow  in  grace  to  the  end. 

XXIV.  Believers  are  subject  to  affliction  and  death;  but  these  come  not  as  a 
curse,  but  as  God's  fatherly  chastisements,  to  correct  and  jiurify.  Death,  which 
seals  the  perdition  of  the  ungodly,  is  to  them  the  means  of  complete  and  final 
release  from  sin  and  sorrow.  Their  spirits  go  immediately  to  be  with  Christ,  in 
a  state  of  conscious  activity  and  enjoyment.  Their  bodies  sleep  in  union  with 
the  Saviour,  the  heirs  of  a  glorious  resurrection. 

XXV.  There  shall  be  a  besubrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  of  the 
unjust.  The  former  shall  rise  clothed  with  the  righteousness  of  Christ  and  per- 
fectly sanctified,  prepared  for  the  everlasting  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light;, 
the  latter  shall  be  raised  in  all  their  depravity  and  guilt,  vessels  of  wrath  fitted 
to  destruction. 

XXVI.  The  resurrection  shall  be  followed  by  the  general  judgment,  in  which 
all  shall  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  and  receive  according  to  their 
works.  Tlie  righteous,  as  in  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  sanctified  by  His  Spirit, 
shall  be  owned  and  approved  as  the  children  and  friends  of  God,  and  invited  to 
inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them  from  the  foundation  of  the  world;  the 
unbelieving  and  impenitent,  remaining  in  all  their  unatoned  guilt  and  uncured 
depravity,  shall  be  commanded  to  depart  into  everlasting  fire. 

XXVII.  The  blessedness  of  the  righteous,  and  the  punishment  of  the  wicked, 
shall  be  eveblasting. 

XXVIII.  From  all  this  it  follows,  that  salvation  is  wholly  of  geace.  Man  is 
undeserving  and  helpless.  Rich  and  sovereign  grace  appoints  sinners  to  be 
heirs  of  salvation;  provides  a  Redeemer;  furnishes  a  justifying  righteousness j 
grants  pardon  through  it;  gives  the  Spirit,  and  that  holiness  and  peace  of  which 
He  is  the  author;  and,  finally,  bestows  eternal  life.  Faith,  repentance  and  good 
works  are  our  duty;  but  yet  they  are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  by  whose  grace 
alone,  working  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do,  we  are  enabled  to  believe,  repent^ 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  413 

and  do  anything  good  and  acceptable  with  God.  They  are  therefore  not  mer- 
itoi'ious;  and  the  life  of  the  Christian  is  one  of  constant  and  humble  dejiendence 
on  the  I'ighteousness  of  Christ  and  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

XXIX.  The  law  of  God  is  to  be  viewed  both  as  a  covenant  of  icorks  and  as  a 
rule  of  life  As  a  covenant,  Adam  broke  it,  and  its  curse  is  upon  all  his  posteri- 
ty; but  Christ  fulfilled  all  its  demands,  and  thereby  all  believers  are  delivered 
from  it  and  from  all  its  claims.  '•  Ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace." 
But  as  a  rule  of  duty,  it  is  of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation,  a  standard  of 
perfection  to  which  we  must  be  conformed  if  we  would  be  like  God  and  prepared 
for  His  presence. 

XXX.  The  means  or  gkace  are  divinely  appointed  channels  through  which 
Christ  communicates  the  benefits  of  His  redemption.  Through  them  the  be- 
liever seeks,  and  by  faith  receives  of  the  fullness  of  Christ.  They  are  not  grace, 
but  only  the  means  of  grace.  Their  efficacy  depends  on  the  Spirit  of  God. 
whose  influence  is  ever  to  be  sought  in  their  observance.  They  are  the  Word, 
Sacraments  and  Prayer. 

XXXI.  The  WoBD  is  dispensed  by  reading  and  preaching.  The  Holy  Scrip- 
tures being  given  by  the  inspiration  of  God,  are  perfectly  adapted  as  the  means  of 
saving  instruction;  and  so  is  the  true  and  faithful  preaching  of  the  Gospel;  but 
it  is  only  the  Spirit  of  God  accompanying  the  Word  read  and  preached  with 
His  own  demonstration  and  power,  that  makes  it  the  effectual  means  of  con- 
vincing and  converting  sinners,  and  of  building  saints  up  in  holiness  and  com- 
fort through  faith  unto  salvation. 

Nevertheless,  in  order  that  the  Word  may  become  thus  effectual,  we  must  at- 
tend to  it  with  diligence,  preparation  and  prayer,  receive  it  with  faith  and  love, 
lay  it  up  in  our  hearts  and  practice  it  in  our  lives. 

XXXII.  The  Sacraments  are  holy  ordinances  instituted  by  Christ  as  the  King 
and  Head  df  the  Church,  in  which,  by  visible  signs.  He  and  His  new  covenant 
blessings  are  represented,  sealed  and  applied  to  the  believers.  A  sacrament  is 
not  a  mere  badge  of  connection  with  the  Church,  nor  yet  a  mere  sign  of  spirit- 
ual blessings,  but  a  seal  and  pledge  between  God  and  believers,  in  which  God  en- 
gages to  bestow  on  them  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  they 
engage  to  be  faithful  in  keeping  covenant  with  Him.  True  believers,  then,  only 
have  a  right  to  the  sacraments  before  God;  and  visible  believers — that  is,  those 
who  make  a  credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  Him — have 
a  right  before  the  Church. 

The  sacraments  are  to  believers  means  of  salvation;  but  then  it  is  not  from 
any  virtue  that  is  in  them,  nor  in  those  who  dispense  them,  but  only  by  the 
blessing  of  Christ  and  the  working  of  His  Spirit  in  them  who  receive  them  in 
the  exercise  of  a  living  faith. 

The  Sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  are  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Siqyjjer. 

XXXIII.  Baptism  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  instituted  by  Christ,  to  be  the  rite  by  which  persons  are 
to  be  initiated  as  members  of  His  Church,  and  signifies  and  seals  union  to  Christ 
and  participation  of  His  righteousness  and  grace,  and  an  engagement  to  be  His. 

As  it  specially  represents  our  cleansing  from  sin  Vjy  the  blood  and  spirit  of 
Christ,  and  as  the  application  of  these  is  presented  in  the  Scriptures  under  the 
figure  of  sprinkling  and  pouring,  baptism  is  rightly  administered  by  sprinkling 


414  HISTORY    OF    THE 

or  pouring  water  on  the  person.  Baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that 
are  out  of  the  visible  Church  till  they  profess  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to 
Him;  but  infants  of  parents  (one  or  both)  in  the  visible  Church,  and  in  good 
standing  in  it,  are  to  be  baptized. 

XXXIV.  The  Loed's  Suppee  is  a  sacrament  in  which,  by  giving  and  receiving 
bread  and  wine,  according  to  Christ's  appointment.  His  death  is  showed  forth, 
and  the  worthy  receivers  are,  not  after  a  corporal  and  carnal  manner,  but  spirit- 
ually and  by  faith,  made  partakers  of  Christ  in  His  propitiatory  suffering  and 
death,  with  the  benefits  thence  accruing,  to  their  spiritual  nourishment  and 
growth  in  grace. 

Before  coming  to  the  Lord's  table,  communicants  should  examine  themselves 
of  their  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  of  their  faith  to  feed  upon  Him, 
and  of  their  repentance,  love,  and  new  obedience,  lest,  coming  unworthily,  they 
should  dishonor  Christ,  and  bring  guilt  and  divine  displeasure  on  their  own 
souls. 

XXXV.  Peayee  is  the  offering  up  our  desires  to  God  for  things  agreeable  to 
His  will,  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  confes- 
sions of  sins  and  thankful  acknowledgement  of  God's  mercies. 

The  whole  Word  of  God  is  of  use  to  direct  us  in  jirayer,  but  the  Lord's  prayer 
is  a  special  guide.  With  God's  Word  to  direct  us,  and  the  promise  of  the  Spirit 
to  help  our  infirmities,  we  should  not  confine  ourselves  to  forms  of  prayer. 

OF  THE  CHUECH  AND  ITS  OBDEE. 

There  is  one  general  Church  visible,  which  is  composed  of  all  those  through- 
out the  world  who  profess  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  Him,  according  to 
the  rules  of  faith  and  life  taught  by  Christ  and  His  apostles,  and  of  their 
children. 

To  this  church  Christ  has  given  His  ministry,  word  and  ordinanoes,  for  the 
maintenance  cand  propagation  of  His  truth,  the  conversion  of  sinners,  and  the 
sanctification  and  comfort  of  believers,  until  the  whole  body  of  His  redeemed 
shall  be  gathered  and  perfected  at  His  second  coming;  and  out  of  this  church 
there  is,  ordinarily,  no  ground  to  hope  for  salvation.  Of  this  one  Catholic,  or 
general  Church  visible,  particular  churches  are  constituent  parts,  and  as  such» 
are  sharers  in  Christ's  ministry,  word  and  ordinances.  That  society  only  is  a 
constituent  part  of  the  Church  visible  whose  members  profess  faith  in  Christ 
and  obedience  to  Him,  as  before  stated.  When  a  society  exalts  reason  above 
Scripture,  denies  the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of  Christ,  the  atonem^ent.  and  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  plainly  indulges  licentiousness,  and  radically  corrupts  the 
worship  of  God,  it  ceases  to  be  a  part  of  the  visible  Church.  The  true  test  of  a 
church  is  its  conformity  to  the  Word  of  Christ.  And  particular  churches  are 
more  or  less  pare  according  as  they  conform  in  their  doctrine,  worship  and  dis- 
cipline to  this  W'ord. 

Christ,  the  Founder,  is  the  only  King  and  Head  of  the  Church,  and  to  Him  it 
bslongs  to  determine  her  organization,  laws,  government  and  worship.  These 
are  to  be  sought  in  His  Word;  but  subordinate  arrangements  common  to  human 
actions  and  societies  are  left  to  the  natural  reason  and  Christian  prudence  of  the 
church  itself,  keeping  an  eye  always  to  the  general  principles  of  the  Word. 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  415 

That  FoKM  OF  GovEKNMENT  which  Christ  has  given  in  His  Word.  is.  what  is 
commonly  called  Pkesbxterian.  Its  general  features,  as  presented  in  the  Asso- 
ciate Keformed  Church,  are: 

1st.  Three  classes  of  office-beaeers — Ministers,  or  Presbyters,  who  have 
authority  to  preach  and  exercise  government;  Rul^ig  Elders,  or  Presbyters, who 
are  to  help  in  the  government  of  the  Church;  and  Deacons,  who  are  to  dispense 
the  alms  and  charities  of  the  Church. 

2d.  Ministers  are  all  on  a  level;  and  in  church  courts  the  voice  of  the 
Ruling  Elder  is  equal  to  that  of  the  Minister. 

3d.  A  gradation  of  courts,  with  defined  powers,  in  due  subordination,  the 
lower  to  the  higher,  viz.: 

(1.)  The  Session,  composed  of  the  Minister  (Pastor)  and  Ruling  Elders  of  a 
particular  congregation;  to  receive  members  and  watch  over  their  spiritual  in- 
terests.    The  people  choose  their  own  Pastors  and  Elders. 

(2.)  The  Presbytery,  consisting  of  all  the  ordained  Ministers,  and  a  Ruling 
Elder  from  each  congregation,  within  certain  bounds,  to  watch  over  the  interests 
of  congregations,  receive  and  direct  students  of  divinity,  and  license  and  ordain 
them  to  the  ministry. 

(3.)  The  Synod,  embracing  several  Presbyteries,  and  composed  of  all  the 
Ministers  and  a  Ruling  Elder  from  each  congregation  in  those  Presbyteries;  to 
exercise  inspection  over  Presbyteries,  and  adopt  regulations  for  their  common 
benefit. 

The  object  of  government  in  the  Church  is  order,  purity,  peace  and  efficiency. 
As  the  visible  Church  is  a  society  of  imperfect  persons,  and  it  must  needs  be 
that  offenses  come,  government  implies  discipline.  Causes  of  discipline  are 
called  scandals  or  offenses,  that  is,  whatever  mars  edification,  such  as  dangerous 
principles,  unholy  practices,  and  neglect  of  the  means  of  grace.  The  end  of 
discipline  is  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  Christ,  maintain  the  moral  energy  of  His 
institutions,  avert  His  displeasure,  preserve  the  purity  of  His  church,  and  re- 
claim the  offender.  In  all  private  difficulties,  members  are  required  to  pursue 
the  course  enjoined  by  the  Saviour,  in  Matthew  xviii:  15-17. 

admission  of  members. 

Applicants  are  to  be  examined  by  the  Minister,  or  by  one  or  more  of  the 
Ruling  Elders  acting  with  him,  as  to  their  knowledge,  faith  and  piety;  and  when 
persons  wish  to  join,  they  can  intimate  their  desire  either  to  the  Minister  or  one 
of  the  Elders,  who  are  to  be  ever  ready  to  converse  with  inquirers.  While  per- 
sons should  strive  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  yet  great 
knowledge  is  not  demanded,  provided  the  applicant  entertains  just  views  of  his 
condition  as  a  sinner,  and  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  and  gives  evidence  of  a  sin- 
cere and  teachable  spirit  and  a  willingness  to  bear  the  yoke  of  Christ. 

THE    DUTIES    EXPECTED    OF    CHURCH    MEMBERS 

Are.  besides  soundness  in  the  faith  and  an  upright  walk  and  conversation,  regu- 
lar and  punctual  attendance  on  social  and  public  worship;  keeping  holy  the 
Sabbath;  daily  reading  of  the  Scriptures  and  secret  prayer;  family  worship, 
conducted  by  singing  God's  praise,  reading  His  Word,  and  prayer,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  whole  family,  collected  together  in  an  orderly  manner;  care  to  in- 


416  HISTORY    OF    THE 

struct  children  and  domestics  in  the  princi^iles  of  religion,  and  by  both  precept 
and  example,  and  the  temperate,  yet  firm  exercise  of  parental  authority,  to  train 
them  in  the  right  ways  of  the  Lord;  and  contributing  to  supjjort  and  extend  the 
Gospel. 

These  we  hold  in  common  ^vith  the  Presbyterian  and  most  of  the  Reformed 
churches. 

In  addition  to  these,  we  hold  to  certain  tenets  c:illed  "distinctive  2}>'i»ci2}les" 
which  relate  to  Psalmody  and  Communion. 

ON    PSALMODY. 

'•  It  is  the  will  of  God,  that  the  sacred  songs  contained  in  the  Book  of  Psalms 
be  sung  in  His  v/orship.  both  public  and  private,  to  the  end  of  the  world;  and 
the  rich  variety  and  perfect  purity  of  their  matter,  the  blessing  of  God  upon 
them  in  every  age.  and  the  edification  of  the  church  thence  arising,  set  the  pro- 
priety of  singing  them  in  a  convincing  light ;  nor  shall  any  human  composures 
be  sung  in  any  of  the  Associate  Reformed  churches."  This  regulation  not  only 
asserts  the  propriety  of  singing  the  Psalms  in  Christian  worship,  but  forbids 
the  use  of  human  composures,  and  is  supported  by  the  following,  among  other 
considerations : 

1.  The  Book  of  Psalms  is  a  poHion  of  the  "Word  of  God.  and  is,  therefore, 
the  truth  most  pure;  human  productions  may,  and  often  do  contain  error. 

2.  The  true  idea  of  praise  is  the  celebration  of  God's  perfections  and  work; 
this  the  Infinite  God,  who  only  knows  Himself  can  express  inconceivably  better 
than  man,  and  we  should  reverently  leave  the  expression  of  it  to  Him. 

3.  God  has  appointed  the  Book  of  Psalms  to  be  used  in  His  praise;  human 
composures  are  unauthorized. 

■1.  ^Yhen  we  lay  aside  God's  own  inspired  Psalter  in  order  to  use  man's  in  the 
room  of  it,  we  seem  to  dishonor  God  and  give  man  the  preference. 

5.  The  hymn  books  prepared  by  churches  are  sectarian,  give  prominence  to 
their  peculiar  dogmas,  and  thereby  perpetuate  the  divisions  of  the  church;  the 
Book  of  Psalms,  like  the  Bible  of  which  it  is  a  part,  is  common  groui±d  on 
which  the  whole  visible  church  may  stand. 

ON    COMMUNION. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  is  thus  stated  in  her  Confes- 
sion :  '•  Saints  by  profession  are  bound  to  maintain  a  holy  fellowship  and  com- 
munion in  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  performing  such  other  spiritual  servicee 
as  tend  to  their  mutual  edification,  as  also  in  relieving  each  other  in  outward 
things,  according  to  their  several  abilities  aiid  necessities.  Which  communion, 
as  God  offereth  opportunity,  is  to  be  extended  unto  all  those  who,  in  every  place, 
call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

"  Saints  by  profession."  or  those  "who  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus," 
are  not  all  who  call  themselves  Christians,  but  those  who  i>rofess  faith  in  Christ 
and  obedience  to  Him.  according  to  the  rules  of  faith  and  life  taught  in  His 
Word.  Difference  of  country,  government,  language  or  denomination  should 
not  restrain  Christian  charity  in  communicating  relief  in  outward  things,  nor 
in  rendering  those  mutual  spiritual  services  which  Christians  owe  one  another; 
nor  yet  in  joining  in  the  worship  of  God,  as  in  prayer,  praise,  reading  and  hear- 
ing His  Word,  and  even  at  the  Lord's  table,  so  far  as  is  consistent  with  edifica- 


ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY.  411 

tion.  But  the  end  of  Christian  communion  is  "  edification,"  that  is,  the  build- 
ing up  of  the  church  and  its  members  in  grace  and  holiness;  and  the  means  by 
■which  Christ  edifies,  or  builds  ap,  His  people  and  His  church  are  the  sound  prni- 
cijjles  of  His  Gospel,  His  ordinances  in  their  2}iirify  and  intec/rity,  cind  faithful 
discijiline.  Whatever  corrupts  and  impairs  these  means  mars  edification. 
Communion,  therefore,  should  not  be  extended  where  extending  it  would  give 
countenance  to  dangerous  error,  corrupt  worship,  or  sin.  To  admit  to  the 
Lord's  table  individuals  holding  to  error,  or  corrupt  worship,  or  notoriously  be- 
longing to  societies  which  so  hold,  would  have  this  effect.  To  guard  against 
this,  it  is  necessary  for  the  church  to  have  explicit  terms  of  communion,  setting 
forth  the  docti'ines  of  Christ  and  the  worship  and  order  of  His  house.  These 
should  be  faithfully  maintained;  and  the  church  cannot  consistently  admit  to 
membership  those  who  are  hostile  to  her  principles,  nor  to  occasional  commu- 
nion at  the  Lord's  table  those  who  cannot  be  received  into  regular  membership. 
It  would  be  very  inconsistent,  for  example,  to  exclude  A  when  he  had  applied  to 
join,  or  to  cast  him  out  of  the  church  because  he  holds  a  certain  error,  and  then 
afterward  admit  him  to  the  Lord's  table,  because  he  has  now  joined  and  belongs  to 
a  church  holding  the  very  same  error.  By  thus  refusing  communion  with  indi- 
viduals and  churches  in  error,  we  do  not  unchurch,  but  only  testify  against  their 
departure  from  the  faith,  in  hope  that  they  may  come  to  repentance  according 
to  the  apostolic  direction,  "  If  any  man  obey  not  our  word  by  the  epistle,  note 
that  man,  and  have  no  company  with  him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed;  yet  count 
him  not  as  an  enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a  brother." 

The  doctrines  contained  in  the  preceding  summary  are  the 
same  in  substance  as  those  contained  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faitli,  and,  if  the  views  expressed  on  Psalmody  and 
Communion  be  excepted,  they  are  in  the  main  tlie  doctrines  of 
all  strict  l*resbyterians  in  every  part  of  the  world. 

With  propriety  it  may  be  said  that  the  belief  and  practice 
of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  with  regard  to 
Psalmody  and  Communion,  constitute  its  distinctive  features 
when  compared  with  the  majority  of  other  Presbyterian 
bodies.  The  doctrinal  views  and  practices  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  on  the  subjects  of  Psalmody 
and  Communion  are  in  harmony  with  the  views  and  practices 
of  both  the  Reformed  Presbyterians  and  United  Presbyterian 
Churches.  So  far  as  doctrine  and  practice  are  concerned,  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South  and  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church  have  retained  more  of  the  Scotch  type  of 
Presbyterianism,  as  it  existed  prior  to  the  reign  of  Charles  II., 
than  any  other  branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America. 
Every  other  denomination  of  Christians  became,  at  an  early 
period,  Americanized.  Many  of  the  forms  of  worship  and 
formulas  of  doctrine,  once  common  in  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
28 


418  HISTORY    OF    THE    ASSOCIATE    PRESBYTERY. 

were,  by  the  majority  of  American  Presbyterians,  laid  aside  at 
an  early  period,  and  are  now  obsolete.  The  type  of  Scotch 
Presbyteranism  has  been  largely  retained  by  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod  of  the  South,  and  this  has  always  placed  the  de- 
nomination in  striking  contrast  with  all  other  Christian  de- 
nominations in  the  South. 

The  Associate  Eeformed  j^eople  in  connection  with  the  Synod 
of  the  South  have  ever  clung  with  an  ardent  devotion  to  the 
Bible  and  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  "With  them  the 
Bible  is  first,  and  the  Confession  of  Faith  second.  They  are 
slow  to  give  up  old  principles  and  practices,  and  always  regard 
with  a  degree  of  suspicion  those  who  either  ignore  or  remove 
the  ancient  land-marks  of  reliscion. 


4^ 


Ill  1 1?;  I  /"l",'.",',?':;,".'  ,?.™"''i'^-SPeer  L,b 


1    1012  01108  8525 


Date  Due 


IM"  IIIIIMHI 


:i  '53 


OCT  3  i  B» 


i^^ 


>35^ 


